Padam Chand and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Another

A.K. Mathur, J.—This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge dated March 13, 1987 where-by the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition of the applicant filed against the order taking cognizance against him u/s 420, IPC.

The brief facts giving rise to this case are that Padamchand and Kulwant Rai are real brothers. It is alleged that by way of a Will a Nohra which is the subject matter of this dispute was given by the father to Kulwant Rai But, Padamchand is alleged to have entered into a conspiracy with Preetamchand and sold out the share of Kulwantrai of this Nohra to Preetamchand. On this, a complaint was filed by Kulwantrai u/s 467 and 471, IPC against Padamchand and Preetamchand. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against Padamchand and Preetamchand u/s 420, IPC. Aggrieved against this cognizance a revision was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge, rejected the revision petition. Hence the present application u/s 482, Cr.P.C.

I have heard Mr. Bhagwati Prasad as well as Mr. ML. Garg.

Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned Counsel submits that offence of cheating u/s 420, IPC is prima-facie not made out on the facts given in the complaint. Learned counsel submit that a civil suit is also pending between the parties, therefore, this criminal complaint cannot be used to twist the arm of the other side so as to get better position in the suit.

Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner invited my attention to the Will Ex. P. 1A and in that it prima-facie appears that this Nohra came in the share of Kulwantrai. If it is so, then apparently Padamchand had no right to part away with this share, in favour of Preetamchand, the tenant of Kulwantrai.

After considering the submissions made by both the learned Counsel, I am of the view that at this stage it is pre-mature to say that whether offence u/s 420, IPC will be ultimately made out or not. As a matter of fact, this petition u/s 482 Cr. FC is for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and especially Ex. P. 1-A the Will, which shows that the Nohra which is the subject matter of this dispute has come in the share of Kulwant Rai, therefore, Padamchand had no business to sell the disputed Nohra is favour of Preetam Chand. In this view of the matter, at this stage I am not inclined to invoke my inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge framed against the accused u/s 420, IPC.

In the result, I do not find any merit in this application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. The same is dismissed.

The record which have been received may be sent back.