Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 886 (RAJ)

Mangu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-04-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with order dated 4.5.2016 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta, District Nagaur (for short 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26/15 (87/12) 56/15, whereby the revisional court has accepted the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 - Hari Ram and quashed the order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degana, District Nagaur (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No. 372/2011, whereby the trial court has ordered for framing charges against the respondent No. 2 - Hari Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 465, 466, 471 and 218 IPC. 2. The revisional court has taken into consideration the charge sheet filed by the police in the matter and discussed the evidence available on record in detail. The revisional court is of the opinion that there is no evidence on record to the effect that on 20.6.2007, when the mutation was sanctioned by the respondent No. 2 - Hari Ram, the then Patwari of the area, he conspired with the Sarpanch and the gram-sewak of the Panchayat has wrongly sanctioned the mutation in the name of one Sanwar Mal. 3. The revisional court has observed that in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat dated 20.6.2007, it was resolved vide Resolution No.2 that the mutation in question will be considered in the next meeting of the Gram Panchayat, scheduled to be held on 5.7.2007, however later on, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had passed the order and directed the respondent No. 2 - Hari Ram to sanction the mutation in favour of Sanwar Mal. 4. The revisional court is of the opinion that once the Sarpanch and the gram-sewak of the Gram Panchayat directed the respondent No. 2, who was the patwari of the area to sanction mutation, then, it cannot be said that while sanctioning the said mutation, the respondent No.2 - Hari Ram has committed any offence. The revisional court has also taken into consideration the statements of the ward panchas of the Gram Panchayat, who were present in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat dated 20.6.2007, who have specifically stated that they had given their consent for sanction of mutation. 5. The revisional court has also taken into consideration the statements of the ward panchas of the Gram Panchayat, who were present in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat dated 20.6.2007, who have specifically stated that they had given their consent for sanction of mutation. 5. The revisional court has further taken into consideration the fact that the appeal against the said mutation has already been dismissed by the appellate court and in the departmental proceedings, the respondent No. 2 - Hari Ram was already exonerated. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below and after carefully examining the charge-sheet, this Court is of the opinion that the revisional court has rightly quashed the order of the trial court, whereby it has ordered for framing charges against the respondent No. 2 - Hari Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 465, 466, 471 and 218 IPC as there is no evidence available on record to connect the respondent No. 2- Hari Ram with the commission of crime. 7. Hence, this criminal revision petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.