RAMAWATAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present misc. petitioner under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed aggrieved from the order dtd. 30/9/2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal revision petition No.132/2010 (75/2008) whereby the order dtd. 2/8/2006 negating F.R. No. 17/2004 emanating from F.I.R. No.400/2003 P.S. Kotwali, District Churu, taking cognizance of offence under Ss. 457, 380, 201 IPC and Sec. 203 Rajasthan Municipalities Act and Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu was maintained.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted the facts in nutshell that an F.I.R. was registered by the Executive Officer of the Municipality, Churu alleging that on 15/12/2003 building of Octroi post No.5 was illegally trespassed and demolished by the present petitioner and also misappropriated entire furniture along with other materials. On the basis of this F.I.R., investigation was carried out and a Final Report on the ground of dispute of civil nature was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Churu who after examination of complainant- Ram Kumar under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance and revision against this cognizance order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitted that the Police after investigation have filed closure report wherein, it was stated that the aforesaid land on which this Octroi check post was constructed belongs to Bhagirath Prasad, who later transferred the same to Mr. R.K. Jain and thereafter who transferred the land to 21 other persons. This report further indicates that ultimately it was present petitioner who purchased this land on 15/1/2003 from Pawan Kumar through a registered sale deed. It was also found during investigation that before abolition of Octroi, a notice was given to Municipality, Churu regarding illegal construction & possession of Octroi post on the land which was owned by previous titleholder of the present petitioner and in pursuant to the notice, Municipality has admitted tenancy and started to pay rent to the owner of the land. These documents are available on record but the complainant had denied the same on the ground that these were forged documents. He further submitted that the chain of source is established by the present petitioner during investigation but learned trial Court had overlooked the result of the investigation. He further submitted that no criminal act was made out but without examining the material collected during investigation, learned trial Court had taken cognizance thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. He further submitted that no record indicating ownership of Municipality, Churu was produced by the complainant during the investigation or before the trial Court but assuming the oral statement to be gospel truth, the cognizance order was passed. He would further submitted that such approach is abuse of process of law, hence, the petitioner is entitled to seek protection from this Hon'ble Court.