SANKARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate has accepted the negative Final Report filed by the police and has rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against one Bhanwarlal before the learned Magistrate alleging therein that his father, Deep Chand, had expired on 10.9.1966 leaving behind him a house at Jobner. After death of his father, his three sons and two daughters were having equal share in the property. Deep Chand never executed any will. But the accused Bhanwarlal got prepared a forged Will on 3.9.1963 in his favour. On the basis of said forged will, Bhanwarlal got succession certificate from the civil court and got the property transferred in his name from the Municipal Board. The said complaint was-sent for further investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Jobner (Jaipur) where a formal FIR, the FIR No. 78/2010, was registered for offence under Sections 420, 467,468 and 471 IPC. After investigation, the police submitted negative Final Report before the learned Magistrate. After receipt of notice, the complainant-petitioner filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate-recorded the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. By order dated 28.4.2012, the learned Magistrate accepted the negative Final Report submitted by the police, and rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by the learned Judge by the order dated 24.7.2012. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the allegation made by the petitioner against one Bhanwarlal was that the petitioner's father Deep Chand never left a Will. However, Bhanwarlal had forged a will of his father. On the basis of the forged will, he had managed to procure a succession certificate issued by the competent court. Moreover, on the basis of the forged document, he managed to get the property transferred in his name from the Municipal Board, Sambhar Lake. Thus, the allegations were with regard to offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC. Moreover, since Bhanwarlal had caused wrongful loss to the petitioner and had ensured wrongful gain to himself, the offence under Section 420 IPC was clearly made out.