Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 458 (RAJ)

Rukma v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-12

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh, District Sri Gangangar (for (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Revision Petition No.197/2009, whereby the revision petition filed by the non-petitioner No.2 has been allowed and the order 12.11.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) of taking cognisance against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC has been quashed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court, after taking into consideration the material available on record, rightly took the cognisance against the respondent No.2 for the offences under sections 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC but the revisional court has illegally quashed the order passed by the trial court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the trial court though sufficient evidence was available on record to prosecute the non-petitioner No.2 for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 2011(1) CJ (Cri.)(SC) 1 and Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar v. C.B.I. Delhi & Anr., reported in 2012(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 335 and prayed that the order passed by the revisional court may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the revisional court, after taking into consideration the fact that in the earlier litigation's between the parties, the Will executed in favour of the respondent No.2 by one Multan was found to be genuine and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 has committed offence as alleged by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 5. The revisional court has taken into consideration the fact that the land in question was transferred in the name of the respondent No.2 way back in the year 1992 in pursuance of the Will dated 27.07.1987 executed by Multan in favour of respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 5. The revisional court has taken into consideration the fact that the land in question was transferred in the name of the respondent No.2 way back in the year 1992 in pursuance of the Will dated 27.07.1987 executed by Multan in favour of respondent No.2. It is also observed by the revisional court that the date of death of Multan as 22.01.1985 is not proved because the death certificate produced by the petitioner does not bear any date of issuance. The revisional court has also taken into consideration that earlier a revenue suit was filed by the brothers of the petitioner against the respondent No.2 and the said revenue suit was dismissed and thereafter the brothers of the petitioner have entered into a compromise with the respondent No.2 while endorsing the Will executed in favour of the respondent No.2 by deceased Multan. After taking into consideration these facts, the revisional court has quashed the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the trial court of taking cognisance against the respondent No.2 for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 6. Upon careful perusal of the orders passed by the revisional court as well as the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the revisional court has not committed any illegality in quashing the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the trial court as no evidence of commission of offence by the respondent No.2, as alleged by the petitioner in the protest petition is available on record. The revisional court has also noticed that the petitioner has filed a complaint after a period of 16 years when his relatives have failed to get any relief from the revenue court. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case and, therefore, they are of no help to the petitioner. 7. It is also noticed that earlier, the petitioner had filed S.B. Cr.Misc. Petition No.03542/2011 against the order dated 09.03.2010, which was dismissed by this Court on 24.08.2011 for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner has filed this fresh criminal misc. petition without seeking any permission from this Court. On this count also, this criminal misc. petition is not liable to be entertained. 8. Petition No.03542/2011 against the order dated 09.03.2010, which was dismissed by this Court on 24.08.2011 for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner has filed this fresh criminal misc. petition without seeking any permission from this Court. On this count also, this criminal misc. petition is not liable to be entertained. 8. In view of over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. Record of the lower court be sent backs forthwith.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******