Tejendra Nath S/O Paras Nath B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6369 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6297/2018

1.     Tejendra Nath S/o Paras Nath, R/o Tulsi Vihar Colony,
       Near Edgah, Nausar Village, Chaurasiyavas, Ajmer.
2.     Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Paras Nath, R/o Tulsi Vihar Colony,
       Near Edgah, Nausar Village, Chaurasiyavas, Ajmer.
3.     Norath Khan S/o Samda, R/o Village Bhawani Kheda,
       Ajmer Distt.
4.     Murlidhar S/o Rameshwar Lal Joshi, R/o 532, 36, Police
       Line Circle, Post Office Wali Gali, Ajmer.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2.     Anil Kharpal S/o Tarsem Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 5
       K 16, Janta Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Rajat Ranjan,
                               Mr. Abhay Nath Deora
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Atul Sharma, PP.
                               Mr. Rajneesh Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 20/09/2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 27/09/2022 This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the

petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated

05.04.2018 passed by learned Special Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate (P.C.P.N.D.T. Act) Ajmer, Presiding Officer in Case

No.134/2017 and the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge (Rent Appellate Tribunal) Ajmer,

Presiding Officer in Criminal Revision Nos.14/2018 & 16/2018.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6297/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that trial court

vide order dated 05.04.2018 wrongly ordered for framing of

charges against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 120B IPC. Petitioners had filed the revision petition against

this order but revisional court also failed to appreciate the

evidence and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land bearing

khasra No.47 was owned by Malla and he had executed a

registered power of attorney in favour of Badar Ahmad on

09.05.1988. After that, Badar Ahmad developed a colony named

as Tulsi Vihar and sold the land to petitioner No.2-Shanti Devi by

way of agreement dated 09.05.1996 and in the year 1997 sold the

adjoining plot Nos.17, 18 to the petitioner No.1-Tejendra Nath.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this transaction

was took place in the life time of Malla. Petitioner No.2-Shanti

Devi had taken electricity and water connection in her name. UIT

Ajmer initiated proceedings under 91A and issued the Patta in

favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that in the year, 2011 the Legal heirs of Malla executed a

power of attorney in favour of Faiyaz Khan. Faiyaz Khan has filed

a suit of declaration against the petitioner No.1 but the said suit

withdrawn by him. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that Faiyaz Khan had no titled over the said property but he sold

the disputed property to respondent No.2 vide sale deed dated

08.05.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no

offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC prima-

faciely made out against the petitioners. So, order of the trial

court as well as revisional court be set aside.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6297/2018]

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners and submitted that trial court as well

as revisional court had not erred for ordering the framing of

charges against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the

respondent also submitted that petitioners had created a forged

document. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that

actually disputed plot belonged to Faiyaz Khan and he had sold

the land to Anil Kharpal by way of agreement. So, petition filed by

the petitioners be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the

judgment in the case of Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs.

Sudha Seetharam & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.238/2019;

Special Leave Petition (CRL) No.1434/2018.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the

impugned order.

In my considered opinion, impugned order do not suffer from

any illegality or infirmity. So, the present petition being devoid or

merits and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

Pending application/s, if any, stand/s disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)