BHOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from order dtd. 10/6/2010 in criminal revision No. 39/2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Deeg, District Bharatpur whereby a revision petition of respondent No. 2 and 3 was allowed and order of cognizance dtd. 11/1/2008 in criminal case No. 12/2008, arising out of FIR No. 08/2007 PS Deeg passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg was set aside.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner-complainant while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the Municipal Board but before that he filed an application for regularization of possession of suit property on the basis of old possession. He further submitted that the petitioner has deposited the requisite fees but respondents had refused for registration therefore he sought relief in civil suit. He submitted that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement in the Civil Court not only denied fact of regularization but also stated that no record was available related to regularization of land of petitioner. According to petitioner respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have deliberately made this statement, so committed offence under Sec. 191, 193, 197, 201, 204, 420 and 423 IPC. He also submitted that after police investigation and submission of closure report, petitioner examined himself and other witnesses under Sec. 200/202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of material and evidence the Trial Court had passed order of cognizance for offence punishable under Ss. 420 and 423 IPC against respondents No.2 and 3 but same was disturbed without any reason by learned Revisional Court. He further submitted that material on record was sufficient to justify cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but the Revisional Court travelled beyond the scope of revision and without considering the fact that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not only denied the facts but also made a wrong statement before the Civil Court. He also submitted that copy of receipt of deposit was also filed by him but entire record was deliberately misplaced, so that the order of Revisional Court is perverse and illegal.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents on the ground that no case is made out for cognizance as material on record was not sufficient to take cognizance against the respondents. He also submitted that the police after investigation has filed negative closure report which also indicate that no offence was committed. He also pleaded for protection under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. available to respondents No. 2 and 3.