SHRI NARAYAN MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order 23.2.2012 of Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur has been set aside whereby the trial court accepted the negative final report No. 564 of 2008 submitted by the police in FIR No. 115/2008 dated 5.3.2008 registered at Police Station Bassi, Jaipur. The revisional court further directed for reinvestigation in the matter in a particular manner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 and her family members. It has been stated in the FIR that the petitioner and other persons namely, Ram Kalyan, Nanag Ram Meena, Advocate Sanjay Jain, Advocate Kuldeep Sharma, Hari Narayan Sharma, Hanuman Sahai Sharma, Bhagwan Sahai Sharma, Mahadev Meena, Kamlesh Kumar, Ashok Kumar Meena have committed cheating with the respondent No.2 and their land have been illegally grabbed by executing false compromise regarding the land situated in Khasra No. 22, 41, 82 situated in village Bhatesari. According to the FIR, civil litigation was pending in various courts namely, SDO Bassi, Revenue Board, Ajmer etc. between respondent No.2 and Ram Kalyan s/o Mangla and in the said litigation the petitioner and various other persons submitted forged applications to withdraw and compromised the said matter and thereby the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B IPC was made against the accused persons. It is also stated in the misc. petition that the correct factual aspect of the matter is that Bhonri Devi respondent No.2 and her family members namely, Badri, Gopal, Ram Lal, Kana Ram etc. submitted application to withdraw and settle the disputes with Ram kalyan before Revenue Board, Ajmer as well as SDO Bassi. In pursuance to the applications submitted by respondent No.2 and her family members, the order dated 18.10.2007 was passed by the Board of Revenue and the matter was consigned to record. After the settlement of dispute between respondent No.2 and Ram kalyan, the land in question was sold to the petitioner herein vide regsitered sale deed dated 20.10.2007 and accordingly the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record in pursuance to the sale deed. Subsequent to the purchase of land, the land in question was acquired by the State Government and in lieu of the said acquisition JDA also issued the reservation letter dated 2.2.2008 to the petitioner for 13847.38 sq. mts. Of land. This shows that the title and the rights of the petitioner stood concluded subsequent to the purchase of the land. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR investigation was carried out and police submitted negative final report No. 564/ 2008 before the trial court. Protest petition was filed by the complainant before the trial court and after hearing the arguments of the complainant, the trial court accepted the negative final report submitted by the police vide order dated 4.3.2011. The respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 4.3.2011 before the Sessions Judge and the same was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan. Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No.3 Jaipur Metropolitan allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 4.3.2011 accepting the final negative report submitted by the police.

(3.) Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the revisional court has passed the impugned order contrary to the settled principle of law that reinvestigation cannot be directed by any court of law and in case the court feels that the investigation has not been carried out properly, then in such circumstances only further investigation can be directed. The revisional court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 along with her all the family members signed the applications seeking withdrawal /settlement of disputes before the court of SDO, Bassi and Revenue Board, Ajmer. The applications clearly bear the signature of the respondent No.2 and her family members. The fact of the signatures being available on the application has even not being denied by the respondent No.2 herself. The revisional court has failed to appreciate that on the basis of an assumption that respondent No.2 or her family members were not present in the court during the proceeedings or at the time of passing of the order dated 18.10.2007 by the Revenue Board, therefore, there was fraud committed by the petitioner and various persons against respondent No.2 and her family members. The revisional court has arbitrarily assumed that the presence of respondent No.2 or her family members was mandatory for the withdrawal / decision of the matters pending in Revenue Courts. The presence of the parties is not necessary for deciding any revenue litigation and particularly in the circumstances when the withdrawal application has been signed and submitted before the concerned courts. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, has drawn the attention of this court on sections 397 and 401 Criminal Procedure Code Sections 397 and 401 read as under: