Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1358 (RAJ)

Sujan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-07-08

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, while challenging the order dated 1.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balotra (for short 'the Revisional Court' hereinafter) in a revision petition filed by the petitioner, whereby the revision petition was dismissed by the Revisional Court. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.6.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balotra (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter), whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the material available on record, the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner but the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have grossly erred in passing the impugned orders. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has wrongly concluded that prima facie case for commission of offence under Section 447 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner while ignoring the fact that the petitioner was already in possession of 1 the land in question and he has not tried to commit criminal trespass on any of the land belonging to the complainant. On the strength of the above arguments, the leaned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned orders. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that sufficient material, for taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. is available on record and therefore, the leaned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. It is further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Revisional Court, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the revision petition. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. It appears that the complainant Bhudar Ram filed a complaint before the Trial Court alleging therein that the petitioner forcibly entered into the land belonging to him and tried to dispossess him. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has assaulted him and also abused him by captious remarks. On the basis of those allegations, F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under Sections 323, 447 I.P.C. read with Section 3(l)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has assaulted him and also abused him by captious remarks. On the basis of those allegations, F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner under Sections 323, 447 I.P.C. read with Section 3(l)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act. The police after investigation, has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. only and concluded that there is no evidence available on record to hold the petitioner prima facie guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. or Section 3(l)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act. 6. The learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence available on record, has held that prima facie evidence is available on record to hold the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. 7. The leaned Revisional Court has also taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and held that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. 8. After going through the impugned orders this Court is of the opinion that when prima facie evidence is available against the petitioner the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 447 I.P.C. The leaned Revisional Court has also taken into consideration the arguments raised by the Counsel for the petitioner and after examining the material available on record, has rightly upheld the order passed by the Trial Court.In such circumstances, 1 do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******