Amrat S/O Sukharam B/C Jatav vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6368 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4773/2019

Amrat S/o Sukharam, R/o Goalpura Police Station Sever, Tehsil
And District Bharatpur, Raj.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2.     Sukhi S/o Moola, R/o Gram Jharoli, Police Station Sever,
       District Bharatpur, Raj.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, PP Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv.

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                      Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                          ::                       16.09.2022


ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                         ::                      27.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated

08.02.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4,

Bharatpur in Criminal Revision Petition No.81/2018 (CIS

No.292/2018) by which criminal revision petition dismissed and

upheld the judgment order dated 30.07.2018 passed by Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Cases) Bharatpur, by

which learned Magistrate took the partly cognizance under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner

and other persons.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4773/2019]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court

vide order dated 30.07.2018 wrongly took the cognizance against

the petitioner as well as other persons under Sections 420, 467,

468, 471 read with 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that petitioner had filed a revision petition to

challenge this order but revisional court also erred in dismissing

the revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated

08.02.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

after investigation, Investigating Officer had filed a negative final

report before the trial court. Complainant had filed a protest

petition and trial court had taken cognizance against the petitioner

& other persons vide order dated 01.06.2007 under Sections 467,

468, 471 read with 120-B IPC. Petitioner had filed the said order

by way of revision, revisional court vide order dated 17.09.2007

set aside the order of trial court dated 01.06.2007 and remanded

the matter back to decide afresh. After that, trial court vide order

dated 05.09.2008 dismissed the protest petition and accepted the

FIR. Petitioner had challenged the said order by way of revision

and revisional court vide order dated 15.05.2009 set aside the

order of trial court dated 05.09.2008 and directed the trial court

to decide the matter as per direction of revisional court dated

17.09.2007. After that, Investigating Officer had taken copy of

agreement from the trial court to get it examined from FSL. After

that, submitted the FSL report. Learned counsel for the petitioner

also submits that as per FSL report, signature of disputed

agreement dated 03.03.1999 is not similar to the signature of

complainant-Sukhiram. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that FSL report has no value, it is only corroborative

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4773/2019]

evidence. So, order of trial court as well as revisional court be set

aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that order of trial court as

well as revisional court do not suffer from illegality or infirmity and

also submitted that as per FSL report, signatures of disputed

agreement are not similar to the signature of complainant-

Sukhiram. So, petition be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that FSL report is against the

petitioner because signatures of disputed agreement are not

matched to the signature of complainant-Sukhiram. So, in my

considered opinion, trial court as well as revisional court had not

erred in ordering against the petitioner. So, order of trial court as

well as revisional court do not suffer from illegality or infirmity. So,

present petition, being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands

dismissed.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /80

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)