Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22524) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22524]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 827/2023
Suresh Khatik S/o Sh. Amba Lal Khatik, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o 905, Road No. 1, Opp. Kumawat And Company, Purohiton Ki
Madri, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Vijay Kumar Vaya S/o Shanker Lal Vaya, R/o 32, Roop
Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector No. 3, Udaipur.
3. Prashant Soni, R/o Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Mobile No.
9667233181).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. Naresh Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/05/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur whereby,
the learned Judge dismissed the protest petition filed by the
petitioner and accepted the final report submitted by the Police
against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (complainant)
filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the
concerned Court. The said complaint was sent to the concerned
police station upon which FIR No. 344/2021 registered against the
respondent No. 2 and 3. After through investigation police
[2025:RJ-JD:22524] (2 of 4) [CRLR-827/2023]
submitted final report against which a protest petition was filed by
the petitioner which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order
dated 01.03.2023. Hence the revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly the
complainant went to the police station to file a report against
respondents No. 2 and 3, but the police did not file an FIR and
instead detained him at the police station. Thereafter, the FIR has
been registered against the accused-respondents pursuant to a
complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and after thorough
investigation, Police submitted a Final Report that no case is made
out against the accused-respondents. Subsequently, the protest
petition has been filed by the petitioner and in support of his
protest petition CW.1-Suresh Khatik, CW.2-Hemlata, CW.3-Rajesh,
CW.4-Yogesh & CW.5-Suryaprakash who were duly examined by
the trial Court. However, the learned trial Judge dismissed the
protest petition and accepted the Final Report without adequately
considering the evidence on record. Counsel further submits that
sale deed of the plot in question has also been executed in favour
of petitioner/complainant's wife Hemlata in the year 2018 but the
same has not been considered by the trial Court. Counsel lastly
submits that in the FIR as well as in the statement of the
witnesses, a prima facie case is made out against the accused-
respondents No. 2 & 3. Hence, the learned trial court has
committed grave error in rejecting the protest petition and in
accepting the final report. Hence, the impugned order being
illegal, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 have
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner submits
[2025:RJ-JD:22524] (3 of 4) [CRLR-827/2023]
that the order passed by the trial court is just and proper and the
same does not warrant any interference from this Court.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
order as also other material available on record.
On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in
pursuance of protest petition the statement of the complainant
was recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., including CW/1
Suresh (owning the plot/complainant), CW/2 Hemlata
(complainant's wife), CW/3 Rajesh (complainant's brother), CW/4
Yogesh, and CW/5 Suryaprakash under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
Notably, no documents were presented during the proceedings in
support of the statements. Additionally, it is evident from the
available documents that the plot was previously sold multiple
times: Kiran sold a 30x50 ft. plot to Hemlata on 11.10.2018;
Kiran endorsed the plot to Hemlata on 07.09.2021; Ramashankar
sold it to Ranjit (Kiran's husband) on 13.12.2000; and Ranjit also
sold the same plot to Chausarbai on 08.01.2002; Lakshmi sold it
to Ramashankar on 18.02.1998. The sale transactions establish
the chain of ownership, but no construction activity was recorded
or evident on the plot at the relevant time, and no evidence has
been produced regarding any development or occupation.
Furthermore, the photographs on record depict an undeveloped
land, and the complainant has failed to provide any documentary
evidence regarding the construction, possession, or occupancy of
the plot, including utility bills or records of any work carried out.
The complainant alleges construction and boundary modifications,
but no supporting evidence has been furnished. Given the absence
of concrete evidence establishing possession, construction, or
[2025:RJ-JD:22524] (4 of 4) [CRLR-827/2023]
wrongful dispossession, and considering the documentary record
of prior sales, the case does not substantiate the allegations.
Considering the observation of the trial Court, this Court
opines that the core issue is absence of substantive proof of
possession, construction, or illegal acts by the accused
respondents. The documentary evidence of prior sales indicates
lawful transfer of ownership, and the lack of evidence regarding
recent construction or possession undermines the petitioner
complainant's claims. In the absence of such proof, the learned
trial court rightly accepts the negative final report and dismissed
the protest petition filed by the petitioner. Thus, the impugned
order is just and proper in accordance with the law and the same
does not warrant any interference from this Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition being bereft of any merit, is
hereby dismissed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
47-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
