RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Cr. P. C. ') has been filed against the order dated 29. 3. 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar vide which the revision petition No. 26/2005 has been dismissed and the order dated 1. 12. 2004 of the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 95/2004 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 471, 468 and 120- B I. P. C. has been upheld.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that a complaint for the offences under Sections 420, 471, 468 and 120-B I. P. C. came to be filed by complainant Bhuramal against the petitioner and other accused persons with the allegation that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 19, 27/2126, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1924 is situated in village Khud which was ancestral property. After the death of Ramdeen, the complainant and Ram Gopal and Dhanni being his legal heirs came into possession of equal share of the said land. The complainant being the natural son of deceased Ramdeen became legal heir of one third share of his property. After the death of Ramdeen, Ram Gopal and Dhanni in Collusion with Prabhat Kumar, Parmeshwar Lal, Jagdish Prasad, hari Singh, Ranjeet and Durga Devi forged a certificate of inheritance and on its basis got opened mutation in their names in order to deprive the complainant of his share and to grab himself the entire land. They in collusion with Prabhat Kumar and Parmeshwar Lal, got a forged sale-deed executed in respect of the land falling in the share of the complainant. The aforesaid complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for investigation. On its/basis, FIR No. 21/2004 came to be registered and after investigation the police found that it was a case of civil nature because the complainant had already filed an appeal against the order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar, Dataramgarh before the Collector, Sikar. The learned APP also opined so on 30. 7. 2004. Accordingly, a negative final report was filed on 31. 7. 2004 before the concerned court. On notice being issued to the complainant, he appeared before the court on 22. 9. 2004 and filed a protest petition on 1. 10. 2004. He sought time to produce evidence in support of the protest petition. The learned Magistrate, however, took cognizance on 1. 12. 2004 without taking his evidence for the offences under Sections 420, 471 and 120-B I. P. C. against the petitioner and for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against Ram Gopal and Durga Devi. The said order was challenged by way of a revision petition which was dismissed on 29. 3. 2006 as indicated above. Hence, this petition.

(3.) IT may be stated at the out set that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against petitioner Ram Gopal and Durga Devi, the Sarpanch, on the basis of the negative final report under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. He has not taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. on a private complaint which he was empowered to do.