LAJWANTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-petitioners being aggrieved by order dtd. 20/7/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara in Criminal Revision No.12/2014 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order dtd. 25/6/2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No.368/2013 has been confirmed.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that respondent No.2 Vijay Shanker lodged an FIR No.260/2011 at Police Station Nathdwara stating therein that on 31/8/2010 and 3/9/2010, the accusedpetitioners No.1 to 5 executed a sale deed of the agricultural land situated in Khasra Nos.579-586 ad measuring to 4 Bigha 19 biswa, claiming it to be their 1/5th share over the said land for which they received Rs.14.5 lacs from the complainant-respondent No.2. It was further alleged that accused Umakant and Mahesh Chandra assured that the aforesaid land belongs to accused Nos. 1 to 5 and the same was shown as undisputed. After execution of sale-deed Manohari Bai, Pappu Bai, Puphpa Bai and Panna Lal came there to claim the said land as owned by them, and thereby removed the standing crop from disputed land. When the complainant-respondent No.2 went to register a case of theft then stay order was shown to him and on enquiry, the accused ignored him and not responded. After investigation police submitted a final closure report on the ground of dispute to be a civil nature. On protest petition and recording a statement under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C., the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (herein after referred to as 'the trial Court') took cognizance against the present petitioners along with Yogesh Kumar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint indicates that not a single allegation was made against the present petitioners, who are married women and residing in their matrimonial home, which is far away from the land in question. He would further submitted that the present petitioners are recorded Khatedar of the land in question and after mutation, the land was duly transferred in their names thus, they are entitled to transfer the land on the basis of mutation as per the Land Revenue Act. He would further submitted that allegation in FIR were made out against other persons namely Umakant and Mahesh Chandra, but none of them were arrayed as accused by the trial Court. He would further submitted that the revenue record indicates that the present petitioners are recorded land holders but a revenue suit for declaration, partition and injunction of the land already mutated in favour of the petitioners, was filed by Manohari Bai, Pappu Bai, Pushpa Bai and Panna Lal. He would further submitted that just before the registry, an ex-parte stay order was obtained from the court of SDM, Nathdwara and this stay order was never served upon the present petitioners whereas the allegation against the petitioners is execution of sale deed despite the stay order. He would further submitted that petitioners were neither aware of revenue suit nor passing of stay order by the SDM, Nathdwara. He would further submitted that the only allegation is registration of sale deed despite stay order, and violation of stay order is a civil act not a criminal act. He would further submitted that after investigation, police filed a closure report in the matter treating it to be dispute of civil nature, as the rights and claim of Manohari Bai & others have not matured as the revenue suit is still pending, therefore, no case against the petitioners is made out. The trial Court ignoring the outcome of final report, have passed the order taking cognizance, which was further affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara (herein after referred to as 'the revisional court') without appreciating arguments advanced by present petitioners. He would further submitted that the conduct of present petitioners is bonafide and they were not aware about facts in the matter except execution of sale-deed. He would submitted that unless criminal intent is established the order to take cognizance itself is illegal so he prayed for quashing of proceedings qua the present petitioners.