Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Lal vs State on 8 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
(1 of 3) [CRLR-680/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 680/2020
Govind Lal S/o Balkrishan Swarnkar, Aged About 58 Years,
Kareda, P.s. Kareda, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through P.p.
2. Kailash Chandra S/o Harakchand Maru, Kareda, P.s.
Kareda, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
3. Smt. Meenakshi Devi W/o Kailash Chandra Maru, Kareda,
P.s. Kareda, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
08/07/2021
The instant revision has been preferred by the
petitioner complainant Govind Lal under Section 397 read with
Section 401 CrPC for assailing the judgment dated 09.07.2020
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman
Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.3/2016, whereby
the appellate court rejected the victim's appeal filed by the
petitioner under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and affirmed the judgment
dated 18.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mandal, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.51/2010
acquitting the respondents from the charge under Section 420
read with Section 34 IPC.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-680/2020]
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced
by Mr. Ramniwas Choudhary, learned counsel representing the
petitioner-revisionist, and have gone through the impugned
judgments.
Balkishan, father of the petitioner, lodged a written
report at the Police Station Raja Ji Ka Kareda alleging that the
respondent accused Kailash Chandra executed a registered sale
deed for a plot of land in his favour in September 1998, but later
on, Kailash Chandra and his wife Smt. Meenakshi Devi developed
a motive and conspired together to cheat the complainant. The
very same plot was kept under mortgage with the Central Co-
operative Bank, Kareda for a sum of Rs.2,14,500/- and in this
manner, the complainant was defrauded.
In addition thereto, it is clear that the disputed loan
application form, mortgage deed etc. were not exhibited by the
prosecution during trial and thus, there was no evidence to prove
the charges of fraud and forgery. Thus, this court is of the view
that even if the allegations set out by the complainant are
accepted to be true on the face of the record, he cannot claim to
be the person cheated in this case. Furthermore, keeping in view
the principles enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2009) 8
SCC 751], neither the petitioner nor his father Mr. Balkishan can
be considered to be the persons cheated in this case. In addition
thereto, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that
the plot owned by the petitioner's father was, as a matter of fact,
mortgaged by the accused persons with the bank for taking loan.
Thus, I am of the firm opinion that the view taken by
the courts below in acquitting the respondents from the offence
(3 of 3) [CRLR-680/2020]
under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC and in affirming the
judgment of acquittal is the only permissible view in the case.
The impugned judgments ,ex facie do not suffer from any infirmity
or illegality whatsoever warranting interference therein. Thus, the
instant revision fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of
merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
22-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
