HAJI SHAUKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 25-9-2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Churu, setting aside the order dated 13-11-2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, taking cognizance against the accused-respondent Umardeen for offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. on the application of the petitioner-complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein Haji Shaukat Ali submitted a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, stating inter alia that the complainant purchased a certain portion of land from the accused Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. Banna Ram, Pokar Ram, Ameelal, Nand Ram and Lalchand and paid a substantial amount for the same. Later on, it reveals that the civil dispute with respect to the said land was pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Churu. There was also an injunction operating against the sellers. The said accused persons committed cheat that in asmuch as the land was sold concealing the fact that a revenue suit was pending with respect to the said land. The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against Banna Ram, Pokar Ram, Ameelal, Nand Ram and Lalchand for offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, I.P.C. During the trial, the statements of P.W-1 Chandmal, PW-2 Rameshwarlal, PW-3 Narendra Chouhan, PW-4 Mahendra, PW-5 Saddique, PW-6 complainant Haji Shaukat and PW-7 Narul Hassan were recorded on 30-8-2000. PW-6 Haji Shaukat, petitioner herein filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for adding the accused respondent Umardeen as co-accused. The learned Magistrate found that accused respondent Umardeen in conspiracy with the accused persons facing trial persuaded the complainant-Haji Shaukat to purchase 85 bigha of land and to pay substantial amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and, hereby, he was also prima facie found guilty of offence under Section 420, I.P.C. The said order was challenged by Umardeen by way of revision before the Court of Sessions Judge, Churu. The learned Magistrate found that there was no evidence worth the name to show that Umardeen was aware of the fact that a revenue suit was pending with respect to the subject land. Umardeen only put his signatures bona fidely on the sale deed as an attesting witness. In view of the finding, the learned Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, taking cognizance against the respondent Umardeen.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.