Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roopkishore vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5514/2019
1. Roopkishore S/o Shri Harigopal, Aged About 56 Years, B/c
Vyas, R/o Dammani Chowk, Bikaner.
2. Natwar Vyas S/o Sh. Narsingh Das Vyas, Aged About 45
Years, B/c Vyas, R/o Dammani Chowk, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sh. Ram Siyag S/o Sh. Purna Ram, B/c Jat, R/o
Barsinghsar Tehsil, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 23/08/2022
Pronounced on 25/08/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred under Section
482 Cr.P.C. claiming for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition
may kindly be allowed and the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by
the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Bikaner, in Criminal
Revision No. 53/2018 and the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by
learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner in criminal
case No. 171/2014 (State Vs. Roop Kishore & Ors.) may kindly be
quashed and set aside."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that on 21.03.2013, the
complainant-respondent no.2 Sriram Sihag lodged a complaint
before the concerned Magistrate, whereupon the Court directed
investigation, under Section 156(3), at Police Station Sadar,
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:56:44 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5514/2019]
Bikaner; upon which, an F.I.R. was registered on 01.04.2013 for
the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.
against the petitioners herein. And that, in the complaint is was
averred that the property situated at Jassusar Gate, Bikaner Misal
No. 38, Bal Mindi, Patta No. 152 which belongs to Bitthaldas S/o
Narsindas Das, who sold the land through a power of attorney, on
24.08.2012, to one Bhagirath and Om Prakash and the sale deed
for the same was registered by Sub Registrar Office, Bikaner. It is
stated that after the said sale, Roopkishore conspired and forged
an agreement to sell, and on the basis of the said agreement, he
filed a civil Court in the concerned Court at Bikaner without
conferring with the Principal, Shantidas; who denied the
agreement as forged and fabricated, and that Roop Kishore forged
Shantidas' signature.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document
in question, which was alleged to have been forged was not sent
for F.S.L. by the prosecution agencies yet the police authorities
proceeded with the filing of the charge-sheet and the concerned
Magistrate, vide order dated 23.05.2018, framed charges against
petitioner Roop Kishore for the aforementioned offences. The
revision preferred against the said order was dismissed by the
learned revisional Court, vide order dated 18.07.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
learned Courts below have gravely erred in passing the impugned
orders, as the dispute is clearly of a civil nature, the civil suit
having been instituted on 31.08.2012 whereas the complaint was
filed on 21.03.2013; thus attempting to pressurize the petitioners.
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:56:44 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5514/2019]
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record of the case.
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. This Court observes that 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. This Court observes that the mere fact that civil and criminal
proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners and the
document not having been sent for F.S.L., at the stage of framing
charge, and also 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. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
