Gopal Sharma S/O Late Shri ... vs Kapil Kulhar S/O Shri Omprakash ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4428 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4428 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Gopal Sharma S/O Late Shri ... vs Kapil Kulhar S/O Shri Omprakash ... on 4 July, 2022

Bench: Chandra Kumar Songara

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6386/2019

Gopal Sharma S/o Late Shri Harinarayan Sharma, R/o Matoliya
Ki Dhani, Gudha Bairsal, Jobner, District Jaipur, Another Address
513, Ganesh Nagar Main, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Kapil Kulhar S/o Shri Omprakash Kulhar, R/o Plot No.a-245,
Kardhani Scheme, Govindpura, Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

04/07/2022

Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the accused-

petitioner praying therein that the order dated 26.08.2019 passed

by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1,

Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur be quashed and set aside, whereby,

the learned trial Court rejected the application filed under Section

311 Cr.P.C., may kindly be allowed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused-

petitioner that the impugned order dated 26.08.2019 passed by

the learned trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and against the

provisions of law. While passing the impugned order, the learned

trial Court did not consider the fact that the petitioner had clearly

mentioned in his application that the complainant has already sold

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6386/2019]

the plot to some other person and received consideration. Learned

counsel further submits that the learned trial Court before passing

the impugned order, directed to take the FIR on record vide order

dated 21.02.2019 but the statement of the complainant had

already been recorded on 17.09.2016. Learned counsel further

submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be filed

at any stage and in the present matter after taking on record the

FIR, it is essential to cross-examine the complainant for the facts

mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel also submits that the

impugned order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Special

Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan

be quashed and set aside and further the application under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for

the accused-petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed

by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh

Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.6971/2019) decided on 08.01.2020 and in the case of P.

Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M. Sanjay Shaw ((2003) 11 SCC 486).

Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has

strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the petition filed

by the petitioner may kindly be rejected. During the course of the

arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has

submitted certified copy of statements of DW-4 Gopal Lal Sharma

(petitioner-accused) and PW-1 Kapil Kulhar (respondent-

complainant) before this Court for perusal, which were recorded

during trial.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6386/2019]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record and the judgment cited by learned

counsel for the accused-petitioner.

While passing of the impugned order dated 26.08.2019,

the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur

Metropolitan held as under:-

"mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZ ij euu fd;k x;kA i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k] vf/koDrk izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p; dk llEeku voyksdu dj ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k ,oa lEcfU/kr fof/k dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= esa izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr }kjk vizkFkhZ&ifjoknh dks gLrxr izdj.k esa fookfnr pSd tehu [kjhnus gsrq fn;k tkuk crkrs gq, dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ& vfHk;qDr dks vizkFkhZ&ifjoknh }kjk fofØr IykWV izFker% rks fdlh vU; O;fDr lU/;k 'kekZ dk gS ftls vizkFkhZ&ifjoknh }kjk rF;ksa dk fNiko djrs gw, mls cspku dj fookfnr pSd mlls izkIr dj fy;kA f}rh; izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dk ;g dFku gS fd mDr fofØr IykWV ifjoknh }kjk fdlh vU; O;fDr jkeckcw dks fofØr dj fn;k gSA jkeckcw }kjk vius c;kuksa esa mDr dh LohdkjksfDr dh gSA bl ckcr izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr }kjk /kkjk 420] 406] 467] 468] 471 o 120&ch Hkk-n-la- ds rgr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ xbZ gSS] mDr ,QvkbZvkj U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 21-02-2019 dks fjdkMZ ij ysus ckcr vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gSA ijUrq ,QvkbZvkj fjdkMZ ij ysus ls iwoZ gh ifjoknh ds c;ku fnukad 17-09-2016 dks i=koyh ij gks pqds FksA vr% ,QvkbZvkj ds vk/kkj ij ftjg dh vuqefr nh tk;sA bl laca/k esa xkSj fd;k tk, rks ,QvkbZvkj iwoZ ls gh izfrj{kk lk{; ds :i esa i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA ,QvkbZvkj esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa iwoZ esa gh ifjoknh ls ftjg dh tk pqdh gSa ftjg }kjk dkSuls u, rF;ksa dk izdVu fd;k tkuk gS ;g izkFkZuk&i= esa of.kZr ugha fd;k x;k gSA pqafd ,QvkbZvkj lkjHkwr lk{; ugha gksrh og ,d lwpuk ek= gksrh gSA ,QvkbZvkj esa fd, x, dFku Lo;a izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr }kjk gh ntZ djk, x, gSa] tks fd mlds Lo;a ds dFku gSaA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds Lo;a ds dFkuksa ds laca/k esa ifjoknh ls ftjg fd, tkus dh vuqefr nsus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izdj.k ikap o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkuk gS o cgl vafre LVst ij gSA izkFkZuk&i= ek= izdj.k esa foyac dkfjr djus ds iz;kstu ls izLrqr fd;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA ckn xkSj leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ftjg dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk U;k;laxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA"

PW-1 (Kapil Kulhar-respondent/complainant) in his

cross-examination before the learned trial Court stated that it

would be wrong to say that he had sold the aforesaid plot to

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6386/2019]

Rambabu on 05.11.2012 and gave original documents of aforesaid

plot to Rambubu. At the time of agreement, he handed over the

possession of the said plot to Gopalji.

DW-4 (Gopal Lal Sharma-accused/petitioner) admitted

in his cross-examination before the learned trial Court that it is

right to say that FR has been submitted in the FIR lodged by him

registered at P.S. Kardhani against the respondent on 04.09.2018.

Looking to the aforesaid cross-examination of PW-1

Kapil Kulhar (respondent-complainant) and DW-4 Gopal Lal

Sharma (petitioner-accused), the Special Metropolitan Magistrate

(N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan has not committed any

illegality in passing the impugned order dated 26.08.2019.

Thus, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

accused-petitioner have no force in the facts and circumstances of

the present case and the judgment cited by him fails to advance

the case of the petitioner at this stage.

This Court concurs the view taken in the impugned

order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the Special Metropolitan

Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan as it is a well

reasoned order.