Harlal vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Churu (for short ''the revisional court'' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No. 9/12 (191/2011), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

The above mentioned revision petition was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short ''the trial court'' hereinafter), whereby the trial court has accepted the FR No. 98/2009 (FIR No. 194/2009, Police Station, Kotwali, Churu) filed by the police and rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the trial court while alleging that a Government land situated in town Churu was misappropriated by the private respondents on the basis of forged documents and, therefore, they have committed offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with section 3 of PDPP Act. The said complaint was sent by the Magistrate under section 156(3) CrPC for investigation to the police, however, the police, after thorough investigation, has filed negative final report while concluding that the land belongs to the family of one Magraj as he had received the said land from his ancestors. It has also been concluded by the police that wife and sons of Magraj have thereafter inherited the said property and sold it to the private respondents and, therefore, no offence as alleged in the complaint has been committed by the persons named in the complaint.

The trial court, after thoroughly discussing the material collected by the police, during the course of investigation, has accepted the final report and rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner.

The revisional court, after taking into consideration the order passed by the trial court and after going through the evidence collected by the police, while observing that the petitioner has filed the complaint with intention to harass and blackmail the persons named in the FIR, has dismissed the revision petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by both the courts below while arguing that the land, which was misappropriated by the private respondents, was Government land and the police without conducting thorough inquiry regarding the status of the land has illegally filed the final report. It is also submitted that the trial court has accepted the final report without properly appreciating the points raised by the petitioner. It is also contended that the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner in a mechanical manner without pondering over the proofs submitted by the petitioner. It is further contended that the trial court has grossly erred in imposing a heavy cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner.

On the strength of the above arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that this petition may be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the courts below may be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

The trial court, after thoroughly discussing the material collected by the police during the course of investigation and after taking into consideration the points raised by the petitioner, has concluded that the land belongs to those persons, who have sold it out to some private respondents and there is no iota of evidence available on record to suggest that the land was Government land or has been acquired or possessed by the Government at any point of time. The revisional court has also taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and finally observed that the complaint submitted by the petitioner was baseless and filed only with intent to harass the private respondents.

The concurrent finding arrived at by the courts below is based on thorough consideration of the material available on record and the petitioner has failed to make out any case to take a different view. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the orders passed by the courts below. Moreover, though the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred as per the provisions of section 397(3) CrPC.

Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.