Satyanarain vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4597 Raj

                                        (1 of 2)                   [CRLLA-232/2018]


       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      AT JODHPUR
              S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 232/2018

 Satyanarain S/o. Late Shri Gangajal Ram, by caste Brahmin,
 resident of Aadsar Bas, Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner at
 present residing at Loonkaransar, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

                                                                   ----Appellants
                                     Versus
 1.     State of Rajasthan.
 2.     Om Prakash S/o Bajrang Lal, B/c Brahmin, R/o Aadsar
        Bas, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh.
 3.     Bajrang Lal S/o Late Sh. Gangajal Ram, (Proceedings
        abated as died on 03.02.2016)
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Dev Krishna Gaur
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                     Order

24/03/2022

      In 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.

      The appellant has preferred this criminal leave to appeal

claiming for the following reliefs:-


        "It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this leave to appeal
        may kindly be allowed and the grounds of leave to appeal may
        kindly be treated as grounds of appeal. The appeal of the
        appellant/complainant may also kindly be allowed and the
        impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the
        learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Dungargarh,
        District, Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case No.396/2007 titled

                     (Downloaded on 30/03/2022 at 08:17:11 PM)
                                                                               (2 of 2)                 [CRLLA-232/2018]

                                             as "State of Rajasthan Vs. Bajrang Lal (since died) & anr." may
                                             kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent
                                             no.3 may kindly be convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid
                                             offences suitably."



                                         Counsel for the appellant submits that the matter is between

                                   close relatives and the allegation is upon Bajrang Lal, who has

                                   unlawfully taken ¼ share in the agricultural land by concealing the

                                   fact that he was an adopted child and was not having any share

                                   in his natural parents.

                                         Counsel for the appellant further submits that Bajrang Lal

                                   was well aware about the registered adoption-deed, thus, it was

                                   his duty to disclose the same rather than to illegally seek share

                                   in the agricultural land of his natural parents.

                                         Learned Public Prosecutor opposes.

                                         This Court looking into record of case finds that the core

                                   allegation of concealing the adoption-deed and going ahead with

                                   taking share in ancestral property, which is an agricultural land, to

                                   the tune of ¼th share of land is majorly against Bajrang Lal, who

                                   has already expired.

                                         Since the main accused has already expired, no criminal

                                   proceedings against other family members can be pursued.

                                   Thus, no interference in the order impugned is called for.

                                         The criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.


                                                                    (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

59-Nirmala/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)