Devi Lal vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4902 Raj

sHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1141/2011

Devi Lal

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Sr. Adv.

                                Assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. M.S. Bhati, P.P.
                                Mr. Rakesh Arora

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 29/03/2022 Pronounced on 01/04/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is therefore humbly and most respectfully prayed that by appropriate order or directions, this criminal revision petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and the Hon'ble Court call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing order or direction in the nature thereof:- (A) The impugned judgment dated 11.8.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate NO. 4, Bikaner in criminal case No. 176/2003 (State Vs. Shiv Prakash & Ors.), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(2 of 7) [CRLR-1141/2011]

(B) The impugned judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bikaner in criminal Appeal No. 69/2011 (State Vs. Shiv Prakash & Ors.), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(C) The findings arrived by the learned trial court for the purpose of acquittal of accused respondents no. 2 to 7 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(D) Alternatively the matter may kindly be remanded back to learned trial court to record the fresh finding while considering the material available on record.

(E) Alternatively the matter may kindly be remanded back with the direction to take on record the altered/changed map of site plan/housing scheme and take further evidence on record."

3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr.

Jagmal Singh Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Mr.Pradeep Choudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are

that the complainant-petitioner lodged an F.I.R., bearing F.I.R. No.

217/1995 against the respondents no. 2 to 7, i.e. the private

respondents, under sections 420 and 467 IPC; wherein it was

stated that the respondents 2 to 7 sold a plot of land, under a

housing scheme, adjacent to the west wall of Sophia School,

Jaipur Road, Bikaner, in lieu of Rs. 40,000/- on 27.12.1995 vide

notarized sale agreements, and that despite the same, the private

respondents did not accede to the petitioner's request to register

the plot in question, and subsequently, changed the site plan/map

of the said plot, changed the name of the housing scheme and

demanded more compensation for the same. And that, the wife of

the petitioner's brother (Murari Punia) had also purchased a plot of

land from the private respondents.

(3 of 7) [CRLR-1141/2011]

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner, the charge-sheet

was filed against the private respondents, and the learned Trial

Court proceeded with the trial after framing of charges. And that,

during the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and

exhibited 5 documents, namely the Ex. P1- Report, Ex. P2-Sale

Agreement, Ex.P3-Blue Print (Map of Housing Scheme), Ex.P4-

Copy of Registry of Shatish (P.W. 2), Ex.P5-Sale Agreement of

Murari Punia. As per learned Senior Counsel, the witnesses of the

private respondents were also examined; and that, the learned

Court below, on the conclusion of the trial, acquitted the private

respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2006.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that a criminal appeal was preferred by the State against the

aforementioned judgment, and that the said appeal was first

instituted in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge,

Bikaner and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bikaner. The said

Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 27.07.2011,

while upholding the earlier judgment passed by the learned Trial

Court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that

the aforementioned judgments have been passed by the learned

Courts below without fully appreciating the evidences placed on

record before it and without taking into due consideration the facts

and circumstances of the present case, despite testimony of

several prosecution witnesses adverting to the fact that the

private respondents have cheated the petitioner and dishonestly

reduced the site plan and map of the plot in question.

(4 of 7) [CRLR-1141/2011]

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the D.W. 1 Ram Kumar Swami produced Ex.D/6 whereby it

was clear that the plot which was sold to the wife of the

petitioner's brother, was in fact earlier sold to DW-1, which makes

it clear that the private respondents are guilty of forgery and

cheating.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that

the learned courts below have give undue weightage to the fact

that the petitioner has not instituted civil proceedings against the

private respondents and that, it is settled law that civil and

criminal proceedings are independent of each other and cannot be

correlated.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the ADJ (F.T.), Bikaner declined to take on record the

application of the petitioner, whereby he sought to place the

altered site map/plan on record.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that

in the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 11.08.2006,

at para 2 thereof, the court has observed that the original map of

the plot in question was not placed on record before it, whereas

the same was already exhibited as Ex.P.3.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the private respondents were willing to return the money

back to the petitioner, which was taken by them for the purpose of

registration of the said plot in question, as observed by the

learned trial court at para 24 of the aforementioned judgment,

which is a clear confession on the part of the private respondents.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thus submits that

the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court suffers

(5 of 7) [CRLR-1141/2011]

from grave legal infirmity and deserves to be quashed and set

aside. As per learned Senior Counsel, given that the subsequent

impugned judgment was passed by the learned appellate court

without appreciating the aforementioned aspects of the case,

therefore, also deserves to be quashed and set aside.

13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsel for the private respondents submit that the

learned Trial Court vide the impugned order, dated 11.08.2006,

and the learned appellate Court in passing the impugned order

dated, 27.07.2011, had rightly dismissed the cases of the

petitioner while observing that the contentions made on behalf of

the petitioner were unsubstantiated, that the documentary

evidences placed on the records of the Courts below and the

witnesses' testimony were contradicting each other.

14. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

private respondents further submits that the version of events

forwarded by the petitioner were not proven to the satisfaction of

the Courts below, and that the impugned orders have been passed

in accordance with law.

15. Heard learned counsel for both parties and, perused the

record of the case.

16. This Court observes that the learned Trial Court in passing

the impugned order, dated 11.08.2006, while making the

observations, that the claims made on behalf of the petitioner,

that the site plan/map was tampered with, was not proven by

placing on record the site plan/map on the record before the Court

to analyze the same. Furthermore, there were several glaring

inconsistencies between the testimonies rendered by the

prosecution witnesses, specifically P.W.1 and P.W.6, the petitioner

(6 of 7) [CRLR-1141/2011]

and his brother respectively. The testimony of the petitioner, Devi

Lal and that of his brother, Murari Punia, wholly contradict each

other, and revealed glaring inconsistencies regarding the handing

- over of the possession of the plot in question. It was the claim of

the petitioner that the possession of the plot in question was

handed over to the petitioner and his brother, whereas his brother

deposed that at the time of the execution of the sale agreements,

the possession of the plot in question was not handed over and

that the same was taken over illegally by a third party. However,

when the witness was examined and questioned as to who had

possession of the said plot in question, he stated that he was

unaware. This claim, was also, at the instance of the Investigating

Officer, found to be untrue, as the land upon a site inspection was

found to be vacant. Furthermore, none of the witnesses who

claimed to have purchased land from the private respondents,

supposedly sold to them under a housing scheme and after

collection of advance amounts, including the petitioner and his

brother, sent any form of legal notice demanding possession of the

said plot in question.

16.1 Moreover, the private respondents accepted before the

learned Court below that they would be willing and ready to

register the sale of the said plot in question.

16.2 This Court therefore observes that the learned Trial Court

acquitted the private respondents herein, only after a detailed

examination of the evidences placed on record before it, in the

form of documentary evidence and witness testimony.

17. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds

that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is a

(7 of 7) [CRLR-1141/2011]

well reasoned and speaking order, and does not suffer from any

infirmity, thereby not warranting any interference by this Court.

18. This Court after a perusal of the impugned order passed by

the learned Appellate Court, finds that the said court while

upholding the aforementioned impugned order of the learned Trial

Court, also held that the that the dispute between the parties is

purely of a civil nature and that no criminal offences were found to

be made out against the private respondents herein, for the

reason that ingredients under sections 420 and 120-B IPC were

not found to be made out, and not solely on the basis of the fact

that the dispute being predominantly of civil nature and can be

agitated before the civil court. And thus, the learned appellate

found that the private respondents herein were rightly acquitted

from all charges framed against them upon independent findings

of the learned appellate court, and rightly so.

19. This Court, in light of the above made observations, and the

two concurrent and consecutive, well reasoned and speaking

orders passed by the learned Courts below, finds that the

impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity, and

therefore, do not warrant any interference by this Court.

20. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

181-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)