Shivkaran vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioner-Shivkaran being aggrieved with the order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ''the revisional court'') in five criminal revision petitions No. 40/2013, 41/2013, 42/2013, 43/2013 and 44/2013. The criminal revision petitions No. 40/2013, 41/2013, 42/2013 and 43/2013 were filed by the respondents Sher Singh, Daulat Kanwar, Jitendra Singh and Davendra Singh respectively being aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') whereby the trial court took cognizance against the above named respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/2013 was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner whereby the trial court discharged the respondent Sulaksh Jyani for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The revisional court in the criminal revision petitions No. 40/2013, 41/2013, 42/2013 and 43/2013 has set aside the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the learned trial court whereby cognizance has been taken against the respondents Sher Singh, Daulat Kanwar, Jitendra Singh and Davendra Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/2013 filed by the petitioner, the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the trial court whereby respondent Sulaksh Jyani was discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.

Being aggrieved with the orders dated 3.10.2013 passed by the revisional court, the petitioner has filed these criminal misc. petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revisional court has grossly erred in accepting the revision petition filed by the respondents and dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is contended that sufficient material was available on record to take cognizance against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., however, the revisional court has illegally ignored the said evidence while passing the order dated 3.10.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the trial court rightly took cognizance against the respondents namely Sher Singh, Daulat Kanwar, Jitendra Singh and Davendra Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., however, the revisional court has illegally reversed the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the trial court of taking cognizance against the above named respondents and has illegally discharged the above named respondents for the aforementioned offences. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court as well as the revisional court have erred in discharging the respondent Sulaksh Jyani for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. though sufficient material was available on record to take cognizance against him for the aforementioned offences.

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

The petitioner filed a complaint to the effect that Smt. Pushpa Kumari executed an agreement to sale 30 bighas and 2 biswas of land situated at Chak No. 2 and 3 BSM, Tehsil and District Bikaner on 2.9.1998 after receiving a consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-. It is alleged that the said land was allotted to Smt. Pushpa and after executing the agreement to sale in favour of the complainant party, the possession of the disputed land was also handed over to them and Smt. Pushpa Kumari assured the complainant party that she will get the sale agreement registered after obtaining khatedari Sanad. It is further alleged that on 5.1.2007, some persons came to the disputed land and asked the complainant party to vacate the land and when the petitioner informed them about the agreement to sale executed by Smt. Pushpa Devi, they threatened the complainant party that they will forcibly dispossess them. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the petitioner approached his Advocate and obtained information from the Sub-Registrar Office, it was revealed that two sons of Smt. Pushpa Kumari sold the land to the accused Devender Singh. It is also alleged that all the accused persons were knowing that the land in question was purchased by them but despite knowing this, they again sold the land by creating forged documents. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., however, the learned trial court discharged the respondent Sulaksh Jyani for the aforesaid offences and took cognizance against the respondents Sher Singh, Daulat Kanwar, Jitendra Singh and Davendra Singh.

The learned revisional court accepted the revision petitions filed by the respondents Sher Singh, Daulat Kanwar, Jitendra Singh and Davendra Singh while observing that Smt. Pushpa Kanwar had no title over the disputed land on the date when she executed the agreement to sale in favour of the complainant party. It is also observed by the court below that the land in question was later on recorded and mutated in the name of above named respondents and thereafter sold the said land to Sulaksh Jyani.

In view of the fact that when the agreement to sale was executed by Smt. Puspa Kumari in favour of the complainant party, she had no title over the land in question, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court has discharged the respondents.

Hence, there is no force in these criminal misc. petitions. The same are dismissed. The stay petitions are also dismissed.