Rajasthan High Court
Prahlad Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 3 September, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:36168]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4074/2014
Prahlad Ram Son of Late Mohan Ram, aged about 37 years,
Resident of Bajor, Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
2. Girdhari Lal Son of Lichhman Ram, aged about 32 years,
Resident of Ghathwara, Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Sohan Son of Jora, aged about 62 years, Resident of Bajor,
Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj.)
4. Sub-Registrar and Stamps, Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Bochalia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 03/09/2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the
petitioner-complainant (for short 'the complainant') under Section
482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.06.2014 passed by
Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Revision No.80/2014, whereby
the revision petition filed by the complainant has been dismissed,
which was filed against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, whereby the trial court
accepted the FR submitted by the Investigating Officer and
dismissed the protest petition filed by the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the
complainant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate.
[2024:RJ-JP:36168] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4074/2014]
Learned Magistrate sent the said complaint under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. to P.S. Kotwali, Sikar. After that, FIR No.27/2011 came to
be registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar for the offence under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, in which the
Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, submitted
negative final report. Thereafter, the complainant filed protest
petition before the trial court and the trial court vide order dated
27.03.2014 dismissed the protest petition filed by the complainant
and accepted the negative final report. Learned counsel for the
complainant also submits that complainant challenged the said
order by way of revision and the revisional court also dismissed
the revision petition filed by the complainant vide order dated
21.06.2014. So, orders of the trial court as well as revisional court
be set aside and cognizance may be taken against the accused
persons.
Learned Dy. GA has opposed the same.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned orders.
From the material on record, it is evinced that the trial court
while dismissing the protest petition and accepting the negative
final report submitted by the police categorically observed that
neither Sohan S/o Jora and his wife Gopali Devi to whom the
disputed land belonged were alive nor they alleged the purported
agreement to sell dated 05.01.2011 as forged and fabricated nor
they were examined in the Court. It was also observed that unless
the said registered agreement to sell dated 05.01.2011 is
cancelled, it cannot be presumed to be forged and fabricated. The
[2024:RJ-JP:36168] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4074/2014]
revisional court also did not find a prima facie case against the
accused respondents.
The findings arrived at by both courts below are just and
proper, with which I fully concur.
For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this petition.
So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /241
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
