SUNIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kota, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.5, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and has upheld the order dated 29.11.2011.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent, Rajesh Sharma had lodged FIR No.8/2007 against the petitioner and one Surya Pratap Singh on 16.01.2007 at Police Station Railway Colony, Kota for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC. After a through investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kota against Surya Pratap Singh under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Surya Pratap Singh absconded and after thorough investigation, police found that the petitioner was having no role in the case. Thus, a final report was submitted on 11.07.2007 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition before the trial Court along with his statement and statements of Rajesh Yaduvanshi, Harish Nilani and Ravindra Parihar. It seems that the trial against Surya Pratap Singh continued in his absence and the testimonies of four witnesses, namely PW1 Rajesh Yaduvanshi, PW2 Harish Kumar Nihalani, PW3 Ravindra Parihar and PW4 Rajesh Sharma, were recorded,. Subsequently, the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for issuing process against the petitioner, as evidence about his involvement in the commission of the offence had started coming in during the course of the trial. By order dated 20.08.2010, the learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner. By order dated 29.11.2011, the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2011, he filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 17.08.2012, the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 29.11.2011. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) SECONDLY , the fact that there was subsequent sale by Surya Pratap to Rajesh Yaduvanshi, clearly establishes that the agreement entered between Surya Pratap and Rajesh Sharma had come to knot.