SUKHJINDER SINGH Vs. AJEET SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Revision No. 187/2005, whereby he set aside the order dated 9.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bikaner and while accepting the revision petition filed by the respondents No. 1 and 3 has remanded the matter back to the trial Court for passing a fresh order after reconsideration of the material collected by the investigating agency.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the instant miscellaneous petition are that the respondent No. 1 filed an F.I.R. at Police Station, J.N.V. Colony, Bikaner on 6.10.2001 alleging inter alia that he is a contractor working at Gharsana; he purchased some household articles from a scrap-dealer namely Saddique Khan on 4.6.2001 after making payment of the cost thereof and some more articles were purchased by the complainant from the aforesaid Saddique Khan on 5.7.2001. It was stated by the complainant that his uncle Hukam Singh was posted in Boarder Security Force and therefore he stored the goods purchased by him, as aforesaid, in the house of Surendra Singh who is the colleague of his uncle Hukam Singh residing at Bikaner. It was stated that on 7.9.2001, the petitioner, Jai Singh and one Govind Singh dishonestly removed the afore-mentioned articles belonging to the complainant from the house of Surendra Singh and did not return the same. The said F.I.R. was registered as F.I.R. No. 212/2001 at Police Station, J.N.V. Colony, Bikaner on 6.10.2001 for the offences under Sections 447, 448 and 379 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code The investigating agency, after thorough investigation of the matter, filed Final Report in the F.I.R. On the Final Report so being filed, the complainant submitted a protest petition and had the statement of himself and his witnesses recorded in the protest petition. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bikaner, by his order dated 9.8.2005 proceeded to accept the Final Report filed by the police and rejected the protest petition after observing that the petitioner was posted as the Vigilance Inspector in the Boarder Security Force and he had seized the articles from the house of Surendra Singh because the same were the articles of the Boarder Security Force and had been stolen by Hukam Singh and in the inquiry proceedings going on against Hukarn Singh, the Vigilance Officer directed the petitioner, Jai Singh and Govind Singh to effect the seizure of the said stolen goods. The goods were duly seized after preparing the seizure memo and thus, the investigating agency was ex facie of the opinion that the case, as projected by the complainant regarding the articles having been dishonestly being removed from the house of Surendra Singh, was absolutely false. The learned Magistrate accepted the findings of the investigating agency.

(3.) The respondent-complainant, being aggrieved by the order accepting the Final Report, preferred a revision petition and the learned Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 25.2.2009, accepted the same and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate whilst directing that the complete papers of the police investigation as well as the statements of the complainant and his witnesses should be taken into account and a fresh order be passed thereafter.