Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balwant And Anr vs State And Anr on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 656/2015
Balwant And Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar PP
Mr. G.R. Goyal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reserved on 23/08/2022
Pronounced on 25/08/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and
impugned order dated 21.02.2015 passed by the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra District Hanumangarh as
well as order dated 18.07.2014 passed by learned Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra District Hanumangarh
may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioners
may kindly be ordered to be discharged from the charges
levelled against them."
2. As the pleaded facts and record would reveal, the genesis of
the dispute is traceable to the complaint submitted by the
respondent No.2-complainant before the learned court below,
alleging therein that in respect of sale of an agricultural land, an
agreement to sale was executed between the accused-petitioners
and the complainant, mentioning therein that the execution of sale
(registry) shall be done within a period of two years from the date
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:56:39 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-656/2015]
of such agreement; as against the said agreement, the
complainant paid to the petitioners an amount of Rs.5,57,000/-.
And that, instead of making an endeavour to discharge the liability
of execution of sale after receiving a huge advance money, the
petitioners, with a view to cheat the complainant, instituted a
revenue suit, by their wives and sons, in respect of the land in
question; whereupon the said land was transferred in their favour,
by way of a decree passed by the concerned Court.
2.1 In pursuance of the aforementioned complaint, a case was
registered against the petitioners and after due investigation, a
charge-sheet was filed against them for the offences under
Sections 420 & 406 IPC. And that, the learned Trial Court, vide the
impugned order dated 18.07.2014, framed charges against the
accused-petitioners for the aforementioned offences; the revision
filed there against was also rejected by the learned Revisional
Court, vide the impugned order dated 21.02.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that
the averments made in the complaint lack substance, and was
lodged with the intent to falsely implicate the petitioners in a case
of criminal nature, despite the fact that the complete chain of
events clearly shows that the dispute in question is purely of civil
nature. And that, unless it proved that the accused-petitioners
have deliberately or intentionally prevented themselves to abide
by the terms of the agreement to sale, they cannot be charged
with the alleged offences.
3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the record of the case
clearly reveals that the accused-petitioners neither had any
intention to commit criminal breach of trust and cheating, nor had
they committed such offences.
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:56:39 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-656/2015]
3.3 Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned Courts
below have erred in passing the impugned orders, and not
considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and
the evidence placed on record.
3.4 Learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by this
Hon'ble Court in Gopal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.658/2015, decided on
19.07.2017); Birbal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1891/2012, decided
on 18.08.2017) and; Mohan Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of
Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.3838/2017).
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the respondent-No.2, while opposing the
aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners
submitted that the accused-petitioners had made every possible
endeavour to prevent the final execution of sale, of the land in
question, in favour of the complainant.
4.1 They also submitted that such conduct of the accused-
petitioners squarely falls within the scope of criminal law, and
thus, the learned Courts below have rightly passed well reasoned
and speaking orders, which do not call for any interference by this
Court, more particularly, when as per the settled proposition of
law, at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is
not required to make any roving enquiry or detailed analysis
regarding guilt or innocence of the accused.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:56:39 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-656/2015]
6. This Court finds that at the stage of framing of charge, the
learned trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous
appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in
Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680
and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal
and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290.
7. At the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is only
required to prima facie presume whether a case against the
accused may be made out. And that the facts that emerge from
the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence
of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges
may be framed.
8. Looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the
present case, and the evidences placed on the record, this Court
does find a case warranting its interference to be made out, at this
stage.
9. This Court observes that the judgments cited at the Bar by
learned counsel for the accused-petitioners do not render any
assistance to their case.
10. Resultantly, the present petition fails, and is hereby
dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
