KASAM KHAN AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for challenging the order taking cognizance against the petitioners affirmed by the Revisional Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the agreement to sale between the parties was executed in the year 1985, thereafter, as per, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the registry was executed in the year 1985 itself. It is only after 14 years in the year 1999 that the complainant filed a F.I.R. challenged the execution of the Registry and alleged that though the signatures of the Registry were his but he had not gone to Sub-Registrar office for executing the registration of a sale-deed. The police investigated the matter thoroughly and gave a negative final report, on which, the complainant filed a protest petition and his statements were recorded under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C. On the basis of the statement under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C., the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences tinder Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. The petitioners challenged the said order by way of a revision which too has been rejected.

(3.) Mr. J.R. Beniwal, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the signatures on the documents are not disputed. He has further submitted that the complainant kept silent for a period of 14 years and that the registry has not been called into question in any civil Court. These factual aspects have not been disputed by the counsel for the complainant. However, as per Mr. R.S. Choudhary, the counsel for the complainant, the endorsement on the registration is forged because the complainant never went to the Sub-Registrar Office.