Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1039 (RAJ)

Devi Lal v. State

2022-04-01

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore humbly and most respectfully prayed that by appropriate order or directions, this criminal revision petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and the Hon’ble Court call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing order or direction in the nature thereof:- (A) The impugned judgment dated 11.8.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bikaner in criminal case No. 176/2003 (State Vs. Shiv Prakash & Ors.), may kindly be quashed and set aside. (B) The impugned judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bikaner in criminal Appeal No. 69/2011 (State Vs. Shiv Prakash & Ors.), may kindly be quashed and set aside. (C) The findings arrived by the learned trial court for the purpose of acquittal of accused respondents no. 2 to 7 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (D) Alternatively the matter may kindly be remanded back to learned trial court to record the fresh finding while considering the material available on record. (E) Alternatively the matter may kindly be remanded back with the direction to take on record the altered/changed map of site plan/housing scheme and take further evidence on record.” 3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Pradeep Choudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that the complainant–petitioner lodged an F.I.R., bearing F.I.R. No. 217/1995 against the respondents no. 2 to 7, i.e. the private respondents, under sections 420 and 467 IPC; wherein it was stated that the respondents 2 to 7 sold a plot of land, under a housing scheme, adjacent to the west wall of Sophia School, Jaipur Road, Bikaner, in lieu of Rs. 2 to 7, i.e. the private respondents, under sections 420 and 467 IPC; wherein it was stated that the respondents 2 to 7 sold a plot of land, under a housing scheme, adjacent to the west wall of Sophia School, Jaipur Road, Bikaner, in lieu of Rs. 40,000/-on 27.12.1995 vide notarized sale agreements, and that despite the same, the private respondents did not accede to the petitioner’s request to register the plot in question, and subsequently, changed the site plan/map of the said plot, changed the name of the housing scheme and demanded more compensation for the same. And that, the wife of the petitioner’s brother (Murari Punia) had also purchased a plot of land from the private respondents. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner, the charge-sheet was filed against the private respondents, and the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial after framing of charges. And that, during the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents, namely the Ex. P1-Report, Ex. P2-Sale Agreement, Ex.P3-Blue Print (Map of Housing Scheme), Ex.P4-Copy of Registry of Shatish (P.W. 2), Ex.P5-Sale Agreement of Murari Punia. As per learned Senior Counsel, the witnesses of the private respondents were also examined; and that, the learned Court below, on the conclusion of the trial, acquitted the private respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2006. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a criminal appeal was preferred by the State against the aforementioned judgment, and that the said appeal was first instituted in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bikaner. The said Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 27.07.2011, while upholding the earlier judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the aforementioned judgments have been passed by the learned Courts below without fully appreciating the evidences placed on record before it and without taking into due consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, despite testimony of several prosecution witnesses adverting to the fact that the private respondents have cheated the petitioner and dishonestly reduced the site plan and map of the plot in question. 7. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the D.W. 1 Ram Kumar Swami produced Ex.D/6 whereby it was clear that the plot which was sold to the wife of the petitioner’s brother, was in fact earlier sold to DW-1, which makes it clear that the private respondents are guilty of forgery and cheating. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the learned courts below have give undue weightage to the fact that the petitioner has not instituted civil proceedings against the private respondents and that, it is settled law that civil and criminal proceedings are independent of each other and cannot be correlated. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ADJ (F.T.), Bikaner declined to take on record the application of the petitioner, whereby he sought to place the altered site map/plan on record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 11.08.2006, at para 2 thereof, the court has observed that the original map of the plot in question was not placed on record before it, whereas the same was already exhibited as Ex.P.3. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the private respondents were willing to return the money back to the petitioner, which was taken by them for the purpose of registration of the said plot in question, as observed by the learned trial court at para 24 of the aforementioned judgment, which is a clear confession on the part of the private respondents. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court suffers from grave legal infirmity and deserves to be quashed and set aside. As per learned Senior Counsel, given that the subsequent impugned judgment was passed by the learned appellate court without appreciating the aforementioned aspects of the case, therefore, also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. As per learned Senior Counsel, given that the subsequent impugned judgment was passed by the learned appellate court without appreciating the aforementioned aspects of the case, therefore, also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondents submit that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order, dated 11.08.2006, and the learned appellate Court in passing the impugned order dated, 27.07.2011, had rightly dismissed the cases of the petitioner while observing that the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner were unsubstantiated, that the documentary evidences placed on the records of the Courts below and the witnesses’ testimony were contradicting each other. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondents further submits that the version of events forwarded by the petitioner were not proven to the satisfaction of the Courts below, and that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law. 15. Heard learned counsel for both parties and, perused the record of the case. 16. This Court observes that the learned Trial Court in passing the impugned order, dated 11.08.2006, while making the observations, that the claims made on behalf of the petitioner, that the site plan/map was tampered with, was not proven by placing on record the site plan/map on the record before the Court to analyze the same. Furthermore, there were several glaring inconsistencies between the testimonies rendered by the prosecution witnesses, specifically P.W.1 and P.W.6, the petitioner and his brother respectively. The testimony of the petitioner, Devi Lal and that of his brother, Murari Punia, wholly contradict each other, and revealed glaring inconsistencies regarding the handing – over of the possession of the plot in question. It was the claim of the petitioner that the possession of the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner and his brother, whereas his brother deposed that at the time of the execution of the sale agreements, the possession of the plot in question was not handed over and that the same was taken over illegally by a third party. However, when the witness was examined and questioned as to who had possession of the said plot in question, he stated that he was unaware. However, when the witness was examined and questioned as to who had possession of the said plot in question, he stated that he was unaware. This claim, was also, at the instance of the Investigating Officer, found to be untrue, as the land upon a site inspection was found to be vacant. Furthermore, none of the witnesses who claimed to have purchased land from the private respondents, supposedly sold to them under a housing scheme and after collection of advance amounts, including the petitioner and his brother, sent any form of legal notice demanding possession of the said plot in question. 16.1 Moreover, the private respondents accepted before the learned Court below that they would be willing and ready to register the sale of the said plot in question. 16.2 This Court therefore observes that the learned Trial Court acquitted the private respondents herein, only after a detailed examination of the evidences placed on record before it, in the form of documentary evidence and witness testimony. 17. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is a well reasoned and speaking order, and does not suffer from any infirmity, thereby not warranting any interference by this Court. 18. This Court after a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court, finds that the said court while upholding the aforementioned impugned order of the learned Trial Court, also held that the that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and that no criminal offences were found to be made out against the private respondents herein, for the reason that ingredients under sections 420 and 120-B IPC were not found to be made out, and not solely on the basis of the fact that the dispute being predominantly of civil nature and can be agitated before the civil court. And thus, the learned appellate found that the private respondents herein were rightly acquitted from all charges framed against them upon independent findings of the learned appellate court, and rightly so. 19. This Court, in light of the above made observations, and the two concurrent and consecutive, well reasoned and speaking orders passed by the learned Courts below, finds that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore, do not warrant any interference by this Court. 20. 19. This Court, in light of the above made observations, and the two concurrent and consecutive, well reasoned and speaking orders passed by the learned Courts below, finds that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore, do not warrant any interference by this Court. 20. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.