Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 319 (RAJ)

Tulsidas v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-complainant challenging the order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat in Criminal Revision No. 28/2009, whereby, the learned revisional court has quashed the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat framing charge for the offence under Section 207 IPC against the respondent No. 2. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent No. 2 and the Sarpanch of the concerned village namely Sampat Raj Modi for the offences under Sections 198, 420 read with Section 34 IPC in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sojat. The complaint was sent to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police after investigation filed a negative final report in the matter. The complainant filed a protest petition. The statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., where after, cognizance for the offences under Sections 467 and 467/120B IPC was taken against the respondent No. 2 Parasmal and the Sarpanch Sampat Raj Modi. At the stage of framing of charge, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused from the offences under Sections 467 and 467/120B IPC but framed charge for the offence under Section 207 IPC against them. 3. The State as well as the respondent No. 2 challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate by way of filing two separate revisions. 4. The learned revisional court dismissed the revision filed by the State but accepted the revision filed by respondent No. 2 Parasmal and quashed the order framing charge in toto. 5. The allegation levelled by the complainant in his complaint was that he advanced various sums of money as loans to one Laburam Jat and the said Laburam Jat executed a pronote and receipts in this regard. When the loan amount was not repaid, the complainant filed civil suits Nos. 5/97, 16/97 and 20/98 against Laburam Jat and his wife Smt.Tulsi Devi in the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat. When the loan amount was not repaid, the complainant filed civil suits Nos. 5/97, 16/97 and 20/98 against Laburam Jat and his wife Smt.Tulsi Devi in the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat. The complainant alleged that in order to negate and render the proceedings of the execution in the aforesaid civil suits redundant, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in connivance with the accused Parasmal fraudulently executed a registry claimed to have been executed by the Panchayat in favour of Valaram, the father of Parasmal. Thereafter, the Panchayat also issued a ownership certificate dated 6.6.1998 in favour of Parasmal. The complainant alleged that the said certificate was issued in a back date by the Sarpanch in connivance with Parasmal so that the decree passed by the court could be made ineffective. The police after investigation filed a final report in the matter. The trial court thereafter framed charge as stated above and the same has been quashed in revision. Now, the complainant approached this Court by way of the instant revision petition assailing the orders passed by the courts below. 6. Learned counsel Shri Deepesh Singh Beniwal appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Parasmal has placed on record the order-sheets dated 28.5.2011 in relation to the suits filed by the petitioner in the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Sojat. As per the order-sheets, the execution proceedings filed by the petitioner Tulsidas in the said court have been decided by way of a compromise. Learned counsel has also filed along with the said document a compromise deed executed by Tulsidas on 28th May, 2011, wherein, the respondent No. 2 is also a signatory. In the said agreement, it has been mentioned that all the proceedings pending in relation to the said litigation in all the courts shall be withdrawn and the responsibility thereof will be of Tulsidas. The execution proceedings have been decided in terms of the compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 thus submits that as the main civil proceedings in relation whereto the complaint was filed have been decided by a way of a compromise, now, there remains no reason to direct reopening of the criminal proceedings against respondent No. 2 Parasmal. 7. The execution proceedings have been decided in terms of the compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 thus submits that as the main civil proceedings in relation whereto the complaint was filed have been decided by a way of a compromise, now, there remains no reason to direct reopening of the criminal proceedings against respondent No. 2 Parasmal. 7. Learned counsel Shri P.N. Mohanani appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that the compromise has been filed by petitioner Tulsidas in the execution proceedings, in reference whereof, the criminal prosecution was launched. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned as well as the record. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the only grievance of the complainant was that the execution of the decree was attempted to be shifted by the accused by execution of a fraudulent ownership certificate. On merits also, the said allegation does not appear to be justified because the patta was issued in the name of the father of the respondent No. 2 in the year 1976. The issuance of the ownership certificate was just a necessary consequence of the said event. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 has committed any offence under Section 207 IPC by having the ownership certificate issued in his name. 10. Resultantly, this revision petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed. Record be sent back forthwith.Revision dismissed. *******