Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1024 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar Heerawat v. State

2021-07-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. for assailing the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No.111/2017 whereby the learned revisional court accepted the revision of the respondent No.2 and while setting aside the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the SDM, Churu in proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. as well as the order of appointment of receiver, the matter was remanded to the Executive Magistrate for hearing afresh the respondent's application for impleadment and after considering his documents to pass a fresh order regarding the disputed property. 2. After hearing the submissions advanced at bar and after going through the impugned order as well as the other material available on record, it is apparent that long-standing litigation was pending inter-se between the petitioner herein and the respondent No.2 regarding the same chunk of disputed land which was subjected to fresh proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner intentionally avoided to implead the respondent no.2 as party respondent in these proceedings despite the fact that it is an admitted position that the respondent No.2 was in peaceful possession of the land in question as has been observed in various previous litigations instituted regarding the same chunk of land. Previous complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. instituted by the petitioner against the respondent Kirodi Mai was dismissed by the SDM, Churu by order dated 24.08.2012. 4. In this background, it is manifest that the respondent No.2 is undoubtedly a necessary party in the proceedings and any order passed prejudicial to his interest on the property in question was absolutely uncalled for. In my opinion, the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein while exercising this Court's revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the revision petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.