Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 360 (JK)

Avtar Krishan Shangloo v. State

2014-08-29

TASHI RABSTAN

body2014
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, discharging respondent No.2 herein from the commission of offence under Section 467 RPC and dismissing the application of petitioner herein for further investigation into the matter. 2. The facts as revealed from the case file are that the petitioner herein is a migrant from Kashmir Valley. He along with other co-sharers was owner in possession of a land situate at Gabroo, Tehsil Ganderbal. It is contended that he was approached by respondent No. 2 herein through one Vinod Safaya for transfer of the said land. He accordingly executed a General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell in favour of accused/respondent No.2 herein. He was paid rupees one lac by respondent No. 2 as taken amount for the sale of said land. It is contended that later on accused/respondent No.2 in connivance with said Vinod Safaya and other officials of the Court at Jammu forged the Agreement to Sell and instead of Rs 1,00,000/-, Rs. 12,00,000/- shown to have been received by the complainant/petitioner herein. It is contended that on learning about the forgery and fraud; petitioner executed the Revocation Deed on 19.03.2005 revoking the General power of Attorney and also brought the same to the notice of Deputy Commissioner concerned with a request that no permission for transfer of said land be granted in favour of respondent No. 2 herein. It is further contended that accused/respondent No. 2 even forged the Recall/Revocation of General Power of Attorney in connivance with the officials of the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal and on that basis sought permission to alienate the said property in his favour. Accordingly, a complaint came to be filed by the complainant/petitioner herein before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who referred the same to SHO Police Station Janipur for registration of the case and for conducting investigation. Another application also came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, who too referred the case to the Crime Branch, Srinagar. It is contended that the Crime Branch has established case of forgery in both the documents. Another application also came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, who too referred the case to the Crime Branch, Srinagar. It is contended that the Crime Branch has established case of forgery in both the documents. Accused/respondent No.2 challenged the registration of FIR in this Court by the medium of 561-A No.112/2007 and the Srinagar Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.09.2008 quashed the proceedings initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on the 2nd complaint filed by the petitioner herein, holding that if the petitioner herein has any grievance against the conclusion of investigation, he shall have the right to file a protest application before the concerned Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioner herein filed a protest application before the concerned Magistrate, who again referred the matter to the concerned Police Station for further investigation into the matter. The police agency after conducting the investigation submitted the Challan under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 RPC. It is contended that the petitioner herein again filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu for further investigation into the matter. The learned Judge vide order dated 24.07.2012, impugned herein, while dismissing the application of the petitioner discharged the accused, respondent No.2 herein, from the commission of offence under Section 467 RPC. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner by the medium of present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has raised the preliminary objection that the petitioner herein being a private party has no locus-standi to move this Court by filing the present criminal revision petition, as it is the domain of State to file such a petition. Since the State has not chosen to prefer the revision petition, therefore, the present petition filed by the petitioner herein is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the State did not choose to file the revision petition against the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu. However, I am of the view that there is no such bar for a private party to prefer a revision petition, but the jurisdiction in this regard has to be exercised by the Court only in exceptional cases where it appears that there has been some miscarriage of justice on account of manifest error on a point of law committed by the learned trial Court. 6. 6. Looking to the impugned order, it is very much apparent that the learned trial Court has well appreciated and discussed the prosecution evidence in detail. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner could not point out any glaring defect in the procedure or any manifest error on a point of law, therefore, dismissing the application for further investigation and discharging the accused/respondent No.2 for the commission of offence under Section 467 RPC cannot be branded as an exceptional case empowering the petitioner to file this revision petition. 7. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in case, titled as, Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911 , has held as under: "9. ...... In a case which has proceeded on a police report a private party has really no locus standi. No doubt, the terms of S. 435 under which the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge was invoked are very wide and he could even have taken up the matter suo motu. It would, however, not be irrelevant to bear in mind the fact that the court's jurisdiction was invoked by a private party. The criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wreaking private vengeance by an aggrieved party against the person who, according to that party, had caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community to book." 8. The Apex Court in Sheetala Prasad v. Sri Kant, (2010) 2 SCC 190 has held as under: "12. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence, and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. 13. By now, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, cannot be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. In these cases, or cases of similar nature, retrial or rehearing of the appeal may be ordered." 9. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner are of no consequence, as the same have been rendered on different set of facts. 10. In view of the above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this revision petition, does not warrant admission and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected Cr.M.A. 11. Registry to forthwith send down the record along with a copy of this judgment.