Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1716 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal, S/o Shri Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan

2016-11-29

P.K.LOHRA

body2016
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Accused-petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned order dated 21.01.2014, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Desuri, District Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court'), directing investigating agency to conduct reinvestigation/further investigation about thumb-impression and signatures of Binjaram on the disputed sale-deed allegedly executed by Binjaram. The sale-deed, in question, is of 17.11.1983. 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that there existed a dispute in respect of agricultural land of Khasra No.91 measuring 5 Bighas 9 Biswas between the accused-petitioner and the complainant who were staking their claim for ownership over the land in question. This sort of situation prompted respondent-complainant to lodge FIR against petitioner at Police Station Desuri, which was registered as FIR No.05/2006. After investigation, police submitted negative final report before the learned trial Court on 11.01.2006. Feeling disgruntled with the negative final report, respondent-complainant laid a protest petition and pursuant thereto examined himself as witness under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and during inquiry also produced witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Upon conclusion of the inquiry and examining prima facie materials available on record, learned trial Court rejected the protest petition entailing acceptance of negative final report. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent-complainant approached the revisional Court by preferring revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The learned revisional Court, after examining correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by learned trial Court, did not find favour with the order of learned trial Court and consequently set aside the same and remanded the matter back with certain directions. The learned revisional Court issued necessary directions to the learned trial Court to solicit FSL report regarding thumb-impression and signatures of Binjaram on the original sale-deed dated 17.11.1983. After remand order, the learned trial Court sent the matter back to investigating agency for reinvestigation/further investigation in the matter in the light of observations made by learned revisional Court. The police, thereupon, solicited FSL report in the matter and after recording its satisfaction that there is no discrepancy in the thumb-impression of Binjaram on the disputed document, yet again submitted negative final report in the matter. The police, thereupon, solicited FSL report in the matter and after recording its satisfaction that there is no discrepancy in the thumb-impression of Binjaram on the disputed document, yet again submitted negative final report in the matter. The said negative final report was again scrutinised by the learned trial Court and while noticing certain infirmities in the same, recorded its indignation that FSL has not been carried out about the signatures of Binjaram on the disputed document and only the thumb-impression being subjected to FSL examination, proceeded to issue necessary directions to the investigating agency for conducting reinvestigation/further investigation in the matter. It is in that background, the petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, perused the impugned order and thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case. 4. Upon perusal of the record, it clearly and unequivocally reveals that the case has checkered history and the matter is pending investigation since 2006. The crucial issue, which has cropped up in the instant petition, requiring judicial review is the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the learned trial Court. In order to explicate the real issue involved, it is very much desirable to examine, at the threshold, the order of learned trial Court whereby it has accepted first negative final report. The said order was passed by learned trial Court on 25.05.2007. The order, as such, depicts the ipse dixit version of the learned trial Court for presuming signatures of the executant on the disputed sale-deed. This being the position, the learned revisional Court made threadbare examination of the matter and by its order dated 09.06.2010 set aside the same while accepting the revision petition and remanded the matter back to learned trial Court. The learned revisional Court has made specific observations that soliciting FSL report about the disputed signatures of Binjaram and his thumb impression is necessary and investigating agency is required to make sincere endeavour in this behalf. The learned revisional Court has made specific observations that soliciting FSL report about the disputed signatures of Binjaram and his thumb impression is necessary and investigating agency is required to make sincere endeavour in this behalf. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned revisional Court, in vernacular, reads as under :- ^^tcfd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks pkfg, Fkk fd fookfnr nLrkost fnukad 17-11-1983 vly dks vuqla/kkudrkZ }kjk cjken dj fufoZokfnr nLrkost tks chtkjke us fnukad 31-12-1974 dks dadwckbZ pkS/kjh ds i{k esa rFkk fnukad 29-11-1982 dks ohpan vksloky ds i{k esa rFkk fnukad 21-11-1988 dks fu"ikfnr nLrkostksa dk iath;u djk;kA mu ij chtkjke }kjk vxqa"B fu'kkuh dh xbZ tgkWa gLrk{kj ugha gSA bu nLrkostksa ij Hkh vaxq"B fu'kkuh gksrh gSA vaxq"B fu'kkuh o gLrk{kj dks feyku djus ds funsZ'k vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks nsus pkfg, rFkk vly nLrkost fnukad 17-11-1983 cjken ugha fd;k x;kA tc rd fufoZokfnr jftLVMZ nLrkost ls mudk feyku ugha djk;k tkrk rks lPpkbZ rd ugha igWaqpk tk ldrkA 4- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks dwVjfpr nLrkost ds laca/k esa lk{; dk iw.kZ foospu dj QthZ nLrkost ds laca/k esa ,Q0,l0,y0 eaxokuk mfpr gksrkA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fnukad 25-05-2007 vikLr dj ekeyk fjek.M djrs gq, funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl laca/k esa vuqla/kkudrkZ dks mfpr funsZ'k nsrs gq, fof/klEer vkns'k ikfjr djsaA^^ 5. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the learned revisional Court has desired FSL examination of the signatures as well as thumb-impression of Binjaram on the disputed document i.e. sale-deed. A perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that while submitting second negative final report in the matter investigating agency has not made any endeavour to solicit FSL report about signatures of Binjaram and solely on the basis of thumb-impression of Binjaram on the documents in question it has concluded that he has executed the sale-deed. Thus, in that background, the learned trial Court has ordered for reinvestigation/further investigation in the matter and more specifically for FSL examination of the signatures of Binjaram from some earlier documents allegedly executed by him. Undeniably, the matter is very old but then if the accused-petitioner is being castigated for criminal delinquency of serious offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC, it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to carry out fair and dispassionate investigation to unearth the truth. Undeniably, the matter is very old but then if the accused-petitioner is being castigated for criminal delinquency of serious offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC, it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to carry out fair and dispassionate investigation to unearth the truth. The investigating agency is not expected to close the case on certain jejune grounds without thorough investigation in the matter. 6. While it is true that unnecessarily prolonging the investigation would also result in harassment of the accused petitioner but then if allegations are of a cognisable offence, the investigating agency cannot shirk from its responsibility to make proper investigation or lose its sight by allowing misdirected/shoddy investigation. Precisely, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of this vital fact and consequently it has ordered for reinvestigation/further investigation in the matter. 7. It is needless to observe here that the said order has been passed by the learned trial Court on the basis of directions issued by the learned revisional Court which has attained finality by efflux of time. 8. Therefore, in totality, I feel disinclined to interfere with the impugned order which is an innocuous order, whereby investigating agency has been directed to procure FSL report about signatures of Binjaram and the said order by no stretch of imagination has occasioned miscarriage of justice. 9. Resultantly, petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. It is also observed that looking to the fact that matter is old one and the FIR was lodged way back in the year 2006, i.e., about a decade back, it is expected of the investigating agency to proceed with the reinvestigation/further investigation in the matter with promptitude and submit its report before the learned trial Court at the earliest. Entire record of the case be sent back to learned trial Court forthwith.