GYAN PRAKASH AND ORS. Vs. RAMNIWAS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur dated 13-11-1991, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offence under section 380 Penal Code and also challenged the order of learned Special Judge, Sati Court and Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2 has been affirmed.

(2.) The facts given rise to this case are that in Feb., 1980, the theft has been committed in the room at ground floor in Jemini Bhawan which was in possession of the complainant Ramniwas and when the theft was committed, the complainant was out of station and when he came back, he found that all the articles lying in that room at ground floor were missing. The matter was reported to the court where the civil suit was pending between the complainant and accused petitioners. The court has appointed the Commissioner and even Commissioner has reported that all the articles in the room at ground floor which was in possession of the complainant are missing. At the same time, an FIR has also been lodged in City Kotwali, Jaipur and Police has given the Final Report. The complainants were tenants in the building No. 2175 situated at Khajanewalon Ka Rasta, known as Jemini Bhawan. Thereafter the building was purchased by the accused-petitioners from Radha Ballabh and sons and since then the petitioners were trying to throw the tenants including the complainant Ramniwas out of building. When the complainant was out of station, this theft has been committed. When the F.R. has been given by the police, the complainant Ramniwas has filed the complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City and the statement of complainant Ramniwas was recorded under section 200 Crimial P.C. Similarly, the statements of Rajmal Jain and Rambabu were also recorded under section 202 Crimial P.C. who support the case of the complainant and they categorically named Gyan Prakash and Ramesh. On the basis of the statements of Ramniwas complainant and other two witnesses, the Magistrate has taken the cognizance and later on framed the charges vide order dated 13-11-1991. Being dissatisfied with the order of learned Magistrate, the petitioners preferred the revision in the Court of Sessions Judge and the revisional Court has also upheld the order of learned Judicial Magistrate except slight modification in the order that no case is made out against Gajendra who live in different place and has nothing to do with the ownership of the building Jemini Bhawan.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the orders of courts below, the petitioners have filed this misc. petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. During arguments, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.is not maintainable against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed in a revision filed in his court. He placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in case of Dharampal & others Vs. Smt. Ramshri & others, AIR 1993 SC 1361 .