RAM SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Todaraisingh, District Tonk in a case FR No. 41/2009 arising out of FIR No. 172/2009 Police Station Todaraisingh, for offence under Sections 420, 419, 467 and 468 IPC. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the complainant Gopal @ Ramgopal submitted a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Todaraisingh on 24.6.2009 on the allegation that he and his brother Kesar Laal lived together in village Dabaddumba and cultivating their agriculture lands of their parts situated in village. Kesharlal married with one lady Gopali and she died. Kesar lal started living with virtuous persons and went along with and now there is no whereabouts of him. The petitioner got transferred the khatedari land of Kesar Lal in his absence by declaring him died and the Gram Panchayat opened mutation in his name and thereafter Gram Panchayat cancelled the mutation in absence of any evidence regarding death of Kesar Lal. The petitioner being son of Raju son of Kalyan concealed the facts and prepared a forged affidavit for registration of death of Kesar Lal while declaring the date of death as 15.8.1990 in village Dabaddumba while emphatically it cannot be said that Kesarlal had died. The petitioner prepared false and fabricated documents and got award of compensation with regard to the property of Kesar Lal. The petitioner prepared forged documents stating to be son of Kesar Lal, while he is son of Rajulal and Nandu and adopted grand son of Kalyan. The Magistrate sent the complaint under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation. The police registered FIR and after investigation filed FR and the Judicial Magistrate issued notice for protest to the petitioner and the Magistrate after hearing the parties vide order dated 21.1.2010 denied to accept the FR and returned the matter to the SHO with a further investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that earlier three Frs. were accepted and this a Fourth FR which has not been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate directed for further investigation. This order of the Judicial Magistrate deserves to be set aside. The PP and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed this prayer and stated that on the basis of the material available on record the Judicial Magistrate rightly passed the order after hearing both the parties. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate for further investigation cannot be said to be perverse.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant. I have also gone through the order dated 21.1.2010 of the Judicial Magistrate directing further investigation by the Police after hearing both the parties on the basis of material available on record. I do not find any error in the impugned order. The criminal misc. petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed representation alongwith relevant documents to the investigating officer and the investigating officer is directed to investigate the matter in the light of the contents of the representation and documents. The order dated 31.3.2011 stands vacated.