RUKMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anupgarh, District Sri Gangangar (for (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Revision Petition No.197/2009, whereby the revision petition filed by the non-petitioner No.2 has been allowed and the order 12.11.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) of taking cognisance against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under sections 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC has been quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court, after taking into consideration the material available on record, rightly took the cognisance against the respondent No.2 for the offences under sections 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC but the revisional court has illegally quashed the order passed by the trial court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the trial court though sufficient evidence was available on record to prosecute the non-petitioner No.2 for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 2011(1) CJ (Cri.)(SC) 1 and Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar v. C.B.I. Delhi and Anr., reported in 2012(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 335 and prayed that the order passed by the revisional court may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the revisional court, after taking into consideration the fact that in the earlier litigation's between the parties, the Will executed in favour of the respondent No.2 by one Multan was found to be genuine and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 has committed offence as alleged by the petitioner.