Rajendra Kumar Heerawat vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 10054 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 713/2020

Rajendra Kumar Heerawat S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Heerawat (Oswal), Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Ratan Nagar, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, through PP

2. Kirodi Mal Meena S/o Sh. Rawata Ram Meena, B/c Meena, R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla, Ratan Nagar, Ward No. 3, Tehsil And District Churu.

3. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Lt. Sh. Jhabar Mal, B/c Mali, R/o Ward No. 3, Ratan Nagar, District Churu.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. N.L. Joshi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
                               Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
                               Mr. Abhishek Charan



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                   Judgment

05/07/2021

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

(2 of 2) [CRLR-713/2020]

application for impleadment and after considering his documents

to pass a fresh order regarding the disputed property.

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.

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 Mal was

dismissed by the SDM, Churu by order dated 24.08.2012.

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.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J 92-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)