Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 735 (RAJ)

Prithviraj Patwari Kumahar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-12

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. As per the directions of this Court, status report has been received from the trial court, wherein, it is mentioned that the trial against the petitioner is going on and three prosecution witnesses have been summoned for giving their evidence on 6.3.2018. 2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.6.2016 whereby, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Special Judge, Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the revisional court'). In the said criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) No. 3, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court') whereby, the trial court has ordered for framing charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact, the FIR has been filed after a delay of about 16 years. It is also argued that as a matter of fact, the land in question was transferred in the name of wife of the petitioner through a registered sale deed, which was executed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that the petitioner is a Patwari in the revenue department, however, before launching prosecution against him, no previous sanction, as required under the law was obtained. 4. On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc. petition and argued that there is ample evidence available on record which suggests that the petitioner got signatures of the complainant on the blank papers and thereafter prepared a power of attorney in favour of the brother-in-law of him under the pretext that the papers are being prepared for the purpose of taking the land of the petitioner on lease. petition and argued that there is ample evidence available on record which suggests that the petitioner got signatures of the complainant on the blank papers and thereafter prepared a power of attorney in favour of the brother-in-law of him under the pretext that the papers are being prepared for the purpose of taking the land of the petitioner on lease. It is contended that the complainant and other witnesses have specifically stated in their statements recorded by the police that the signatures of the complainant were obtained by the petitioner on the blank papers under the pretext of preparing documents for the purpose of leasing out the land of the petitioner. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that though the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but as a matter of fact, it is a second revision, which is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below as well as the material available on record. 8. The complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner while alleging that the petitioner had obtained his signatures on the blank papers for the purpose of preparing documents for leasing out the land of him, however, later on, without informing the complainant, the petitioner had prepared a power of attorney of the complainant in favour of his brother-in-law on the said blank papers and thereafter transferred the land in favour of his wife through a registered sale deed. 9. The police during the course of investigation recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses, in which, they have asserted that the petitioner had obtained signatures of the complainant on the blank papers under the pretext of preparation of documents for the purpose of leasing out the land of him, but later on, he had prepared a power of attorney on the said papers in favour of his brother-in-law and thereafter sold the land of the complainant through that power of attorney to his wife. 10. The trial court as well as the revisional court have taken into consideration the said evidence available on record and concluded that ample evidence is available on record for framing charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 11. 10. The trial court as well as the revisional court have taken into consideration the said evidence available on record and concluded that ample evidence is available on record for framing charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 12. Otherwise also, this criminal misc. petition, though filed while invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred as per Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, this misc. petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.