Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 879 (RAJ)

Bheru Lal v. Kalu Keer

2013-05-03

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No. 142/2008, whereby the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the learned trial court dismissed the protest petition and accepted the negative final report submitted by the police in connection with FIR No. 198/2007 of Police Station, Sadar, Bhilwara. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the trial court against the respondent No. 1 Kalu Keer, while alleging that he was having two brothers viz. Laxman and Nagji, both of them died issue-less, however, respondent No. 1 Kalu, impersonating himself as son of Nagji, got the mutation sanctioned in his name in respect of agriculture holdings of Nagji in fraudulent manner and thereafter sold the said agricultural land to some one else. The complaint preferred by the petitioner was forwarded under section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the trial court to the Police Station, Sadar, Bhilwara, where an FIR No. 198/2007 was registered against the respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. After thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report, while concluding that Nagji was married to Shyamu, who later on had gone in Nata with some other person but at the time when she went to Nata, she was having a little child Kalu, who was born out of wedlock of Nagji and Shyamu. After the death of Nagji, the agricultural land situated in Khasra No. 908/931, 575, 855 was mutated in favour of Kalu thirteen years before filing of the complaint by the petitioner. The police had also concluded that there was no illegality in selling the land by Kalu and as such the complaint filed by the petitioner was treated as false. 3. Being aggrieved by the negative final report, the petitioner preferred a protest petition before the learned trial court and also produced certain witnesses. The police had also concluded that there was no illegality in selling the land by Kalu and as such the complaint filed by the petitioner was treated as false. 3. Being aggrieved by the negative final report, the petitioner preferred a protest petition before the learned trial court and also produced certain witnesses. The learned trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner in support of the protest petition and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, concluded that the mother of Kalu had contracted Nata marriage and at the time of her Nata, Kalu was very small and her mother took him away with her to the house of her new husband and Kalu remained there and, therefore, in the voter list and other documents, name of father of Kalu was mentioned as Lalu, with whom, his mother had contracted Nata marriage. The learned trial court further observed that from the evidence, to the effect, is available on record that Kalu was born out of wedlock of Shyamu and Nagji and, therefore, the learned trial court vide order dated 17.07.2008, rejected the protest petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner and accepted the FR submitted by the police. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2008, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned revisional court, however, the learned revisional court, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 03.03.2009 and has affirmed the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 so also the statements recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C and the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner, a case of forgery is made out. However, the learned courts below had scanned and scrutinised the evidence meticulously as if they were deciding the case finally on the basis of primary evidence. It is contended that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court were required to see the prima facie case as to whether any offence is made out or not, but both the courts below have proceeded in the matter as if they are finally deciding the case. It is contended that the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court were required to see the prima facie case as to whether any offence is made out or not, but both the courts below have proceeded in the matter as if they are finally deciding the case. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documentary evidence such as voter list as well as other documents available on record clearly suggests that the respondent No. 1 is son of Lalu and not the son of Nagji and he, by impersonating himself as son of Nagji, got the mutation of the agricultural land, belonging to Nagji, sanctioned in his favour and sold it unauthorisedly and, therefore, a case for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is prima facie made out against respondent No. 1 Kalu Keer but the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court have not taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and illegally passed the orders dated 17.07.2008 and 03.03.2009 respectively. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the orders passed by the learned trial court and the learned revisional court and has argued that from the material available on record, no offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC is made out against the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly passed the order dated 17.07.2008. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the evidence collected by the police during investigation, it is clearly revealed that Shyamu, mother of respondent No. 1 Kalu and wife of Nagji had contracted Nata marriage with Lalu and took away Kalu with her to live with her new husband. The evidence to this effect is also available on record that Kalu was son of Nagji and Shyamu, and the mutation, in respect of the agricultural land belonging to Nagji, was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 Kalu thirteen years before the filing of the complaint by the petitioner. 8. The evidence to this effect is also available on record that Kalu was son of Nagji and Shyamu, and the mutation, in respect of the agricultural land belonging to Nagji, was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 Kalu thirteen years before the filing of the complaint by the petitioner. 8. The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court cannot be said to be unreasonable in any manner and the learned trial court was required to look into the evidence collected during the investigation by the police and if it is found that no evidence of commission of offences alleged is available on record, then certainly the learned trial court is within its jurisdiction to accept the final report. The revisional court has also taken into consideration each aspect of the matter and has passed the impugned order dated 03.03.2009 and this Court does not find any illegality in the same.Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed.The record of the trial court be sent forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******