Bhanwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4199 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014062]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2046/2019

Bhanwar Lal S/o Pancha Ram, Aged About 54 Years, B/c Jat (Gil), R/o Dagdi Tehsil Degana Distt. Nagaur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Sukhi Devi W/o Sh. Ram Chandra,

3. Chakudi W/o Sh. Meh Ram,

4. Ramraghunath S/o Sh. Meh Ram, All B/c Jat (Gil), R/o Dagdi Tehsil Degana Distt. Nagaur.

5. Ram Niwas S/o Sh. Heera Ram Jat, R/o Bhanwla Tehsil Jayal Distt. Nagaur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP Mr. Ramavtar Inda

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

08/05/2023

Instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.03.2019, passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta in Cr. Revision

No.18/2018 by which the learned Judge dismissed the revision

filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 19.06.2014

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degana in

Regular Criminal Case No.170/2014 whereby the learned

Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under

Section 190(b) Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against other accused

persons.

[2023/RJJD/014062] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-2046/2019]

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a

complaint against respondents No.2 to 5, Lichman Ram, the then

Patwari, Revenue Inspector and Nayab Tehsildar, inter alia stating

therein that the petitioner-complainant is son of Pancha Ram S/o

Sawanta Ram, whereas accused Lichman Ram is son of Late Dana

Ram (Dana ram is son of complainant's great grandfather Choutha

Ram). It was further stated that a land comprised in Khasra No.1

measuring 65 bigha 12 biswa belonged to Sawanta Ram, Hema,

Chuna all are son of Choutha. In the said land, the grandfather of

the complainant Sawanta had 1/3 rd. All the accused persons while

hatching criminal conspiracy with the officials of revenue

department, while pretending Lichman Ram to be son of Sawanta

got the entire land mutated in hijs names, whereas Lichman Ram

is not son of Sawanta but he is son of Dana Ram. The subsequent

sale of the land too was made on the basis of the said forged

documents.

On the said complaint, Police registered a case and started

investigation. After investigation, Police filed charge-sheet only

against accused Lichman Ram and in respect of respondent No.2

to 5 submitted final report stating that no case is made out

against them.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application under

Section 190(b) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Degana praying therein to take cognizance against respondents

No.2 to 5 and against the then Patwari and Naib Tehsildar. But the

learned Magistrate dismissed the same vide order dated

19.06.2014 and refused to take cognizance against respondents

No.2 to 5.

[2023/RJJD/014062] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-2046/2019]

Against the order of Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner filed a

revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, which was

too dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2019.

Hence, this misc. petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below

have not considered the material aspect of the matter while

passing the orders impugned and committed grave error in

dismissing the application under Section 190(b) Cr.P.C. Counsel

further submits that the courts below have committed error in not

considering the fact that there are ample material evidence

available on record, from which it is clear that the guilt of rest of

the accused persons have been brought home successfully,

whereas while committing a grave error, cognizance has been

taken only against accused Lichman Ram. It is further submitted

that when it is clear that accused Lichman Ram had shown himself

to be son of Sawanta Ram, whereas he is son of Dana Ram and

this fact was very much in the knowledge of rest of the accused

persons but they acted as accomplice/aide in commission of the

offence and while being part of the criminal conspiracy allowed

accused Lichman Ram to reap gain knowingly that he was not

entitled for the same. Thus, on the face of record, commission of

offence is very much clear by rest of the accused persons. Further,

had the part of land, which did not belong to Lichman Ram, not

been recorded in his name with the conspiracy of rest of the

accused persons, then it would not have been sold to Sukhi Devi

and Chakudi, who are wife of Lichman's son and wife of Hema

Ram (Brother of Lichman Ram). Counsel further submitted that

Ramraghunath and Ramniwas appended their signatures on the

[2023/RJJD/014062] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-2046/2019]

forged sale-deed as witnesses knowingly that Lichman Ram is not

son of Sawanta Ram but he is son of Dana Ram. Thus, the

involvement of the respondents No.2 to 5 in commission of

offence is more than proved on the face of record.

Counsel further submitted that the accused are relatives of

Lichman and they knew it very well that their act would benefit

Lichman Ram and would deprive the present petitioner of his due

and just share of land. The accused persons are interest persons

and even purchasers Sukhi Devi and Chakudi were knowing it that

the land was in fact not belonging to Lichman Ram. Counsel

submits that while taking cognizance, all the aforesaid factor

germane to consideration, ought to have been considered but they

escaped appreciation by the learned courts below.

Counsel further submits that it is trite law that while taking

cognizance, court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total

effect of evidence and documents produced before it and the court

cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution. In the present

case, there was basic material available on record for taking

cognizance against the persons named in the FIR. But the learned

trial court as well as learned revisional court have failed to

consider the same.

It is submitted that the learned courts below have fallen into

an error in not appreciating that there is ample material on record

to take cognizance against rest of the accused persons, but the

learned courts below have failed to consider it. Thus, the orders

impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that learned courts below have already

[2023/RJJD/014062] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-2046/2019]

considered all the material aspect of the matter. Further, Police

after thorough investigation filed charge-sheet only against

Lichman Ram and in respect of respondents No.2 to 5 submitted

final report. It is submitted that there is no question to disbelieve

the police investigation and the learned courts below have rightly

passed the impugned order on the basis of oral and documentary

evidence. Thus, there is no occasion to interfere in the concurrent

findings of the courts below. In such circumstances, the petition

may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned orders.

The trial court while passing the judgment has held that the

Investigating Officer after thorough investigation came to the

conclusion that accused Lichman Ram pretending himself to be

son of Sawanta sold the land in dispute to other accused persons

and from the evidence collected during investigation, it is evident

that this fact was not in the knowledge of other accused persons.

Thus, on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed

charge-sheet only against accused Lichman Ram and submitted FR

against other accused persons before the competent court.

Learned trial court has held that at the stage of taking cognizance,

the court should prima facie consider the documentary evidence

available in the charge-sheet. The trial court after considering the

oral as well as documentary evidence available on record has

prima facie took cognizance only against accused Lichman Ram for

offence under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC and did not

find any cogent material to take cognizance against other accused

persons and rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner filed

[2023/RJJD/014062] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-2046/2019]

under Section 190(b) Cr.P.C. The petitioner also filed a revision

before the Additional Sessions Judge, Merta, which has also been

dismissed by a detailed order. Both the Courts below concurrently

did not find any cogent ground to take cognizance against other

accused persons. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere

in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

There is no illegality or perversity in the orders impugned

and there is no abuse of process of law while passing the same.

Hence, no interfere is called for from this Court.

The misc. petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 132-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)