Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 932 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-08

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 11.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge no. 1 Sri Ganganagar whereby he accepted the petition preferred by respondent no. 2 and directed the Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. Briefly stated respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Sri Ganganagar on 04.09.2003 whereby she alleged that her father Ram Narayan was having half share in shop no. 128 situated at the-Bazari Raisinghnagar. 3. A grievance was made by complainant that after death of her father, she became legal heir to the estate of her father along with present petitioner Om Prakash, Janakraj and four other sisters namely Lajjo Devi, Paro Devi, Ganga Devi, Laxmi Devi and mother Maina Devi. It was further alleged by the complainant that under duress, she was made to sign blank stamp papers. In short, complainant had alleged that the accused petitioner had fabricated the documents to succeed to the shop, which was in the name of the father to the exclusion of the other legal heirs. 4. The above said complaint was filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. whereupon FIR No. 346/2003 was registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 5. The Police investigated the case and submitted cancellation report. Aggrieved against the same, complainant filed a protest petition. The Court after recording the statement of the complainant and four other witnesses passed a detailed order dated 13th September 2004 and accepted the cancellation report. 6. The complainant being not satisfied, filed a revision petition. The Court below accepted the revision petition. In the present petition, it has been canvassed that order passed by the Magistrate was well reasoned and since there was no material, the court had rightly accepted the cancellation report. It is further stated that grave error was committed by the revisional Court below by accepting the revision petition without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may this Court need not to examine the merits of the case. Counsel of the parties have stated that dispute has been amicably resolved between the petitioner and the complainant, who are stated to be brother and sister. 8. 7. Be that as it may this Court need not to examine the merits of the case. Counsel of the parties have stated that dispute has been amicably resolved between the petitioner and the complainant, who are stated to be brother and sister. 8. Counsel for the parties have drawn my attention to order dated 19.03.2013 passed by coordinate Bench, which read as under:- "The present petition relates to a property dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, who are brother and sister respectively. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that aside of the criminal proceedings taken by the complainant against the petitioner, the issue with regard to the relinquishment of the rights of the complainant in the disputed shop is also the subject matter of civil dispute. Quite evidently, a civil dispute between the parties underlies the present proceedings. In my considered opinion, it would be fit and proper to address the present matter through the Mediation Centre. Let the petition be remitted to the Mediation Centre. The parties i.e. the complainant and the petitioner are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on 16.04.2013." 9. It is further stated that after the matter was referred to Mediation Centre with efforts made by the mediator, the parties have settled the dispute. It would be opposite here to reproduce the report submitted by the mediator. "Both the parties are present in person with their counsels. Matter is taken up for mediation proceedings. A joint and separate session is took place with the parties concerned. After a deep discussion both the parties are ready to finally settled the dispute in regard to the matter relating to the dispute arising in criminal/revision petition no. 86/2006 vide judgment dated 11.01.2007 and order dated 20.07.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar with final report no. 118/2003 and in order dated 3.2.2005 in Criminal Revision No. 208/2004. Therefore the parties do not want to continue with the all pending proceedings related to the present dispute. Hence, final report of settlement is being submitted before Hon'ble Court for further order." 10. Shri Vineet Jain appearing for the petitioner has stated that since the matter has been resolved, therefore, the present petition should be accepted and the impugned order should be quashed. Shri HR Bishnoi appearing on behalf of respondent no. Hence, final report of settlement is being submitted before Hon'ble Court for further order." 10. Shri Vineet Jain appearing for the petitioner has stated that since the matter has been resolved, therefore, the present petition should be accepted and the impugned order should be quashed. Shri HR Bishnoi appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 has no objection, in case, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order whereby direction was given to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioner is quashed. 11. Shri A.R.Nikub appearing for the State has also submitted that since long standing family dispute has been resolved and parties have effected compromise in order to promote amity, harmony and everlasting peace between the citizens, State will not stand in the way especially when the Investigating Agency had already concluded that no offence is made out in the present case. 12. Consequently in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, present petition is accepted and criminal proceedings against the petitioner are ordered to be dropped. Thus, the order whereby cancellation report was accepted is upheld and order passed by the Magistrate in pursuance of the direction given by revisional Court whereby cognizance of the offences against the petitioner was taken are hereby set aside along with order passed by revisional Court below.Petition allowed. *******