KUNNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 6. 8. 1999 whereby the learned Judl. Magistrate, Kuchaman City proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 447, 427 and 379, I. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 68/99 and, so also, order dated 6. 9. 2005 passed by the revisional Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in taking cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioners in the absence of sufficient evidentiary material on record. He submitted that the case is of civil nature because the land in question was sold to the petitioners by the complainant vide an agreement to sale and the petitioners have filed suit in which stay order was granted upon the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, C. P. C. in which restraining the complainant and other persons it is ordered that they will not sell the land in question situated in Khasra No. 456, Rakba 1. 45 hectare Moja Jasrana and the State Government as well as Registration Department have been restrained from registering the sale document, if any, executed by non-petitioner No. 2. Further, while ordering status quo with regard to the land in question, the Court has ordered that no mutation shall be made in favour of Mukana Ram. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that FIR was also filed for offences under Sections 147, 447 and 379, I. P. C. against complainant and 7 others and there is litigation going on in between the parties. It has, therefore, been submitted that cognizance has wrongly been taken against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the revisional Court failed to appreciate the matter in correct perspective and, therefore, the order dated 6. 9. 2005 is arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also invited attention of the Court towards judgments reported in 2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 95, Nazeer Ahmed & Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 135, Devilal vs. State of Rajasthan & Another, 2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj. 214, Almi vs. State of Rajasthan & Another 2004 (1) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 225 Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan & Another. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2000 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 218, Narendra Singh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan. I have gone through the judgments cited. It is clear from the facts of the case in hand that the suit was filed in the month of May 1999 and still the complainant and his brother Dana Ram are khatedars of the land in question. There is no sale by the complainant in favour of the petitioners. As such the facts of the present case are entirely different than the facts of the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. I have carefully gone through the orders impugned. It is specifically mentioned in order passed by the Trial Court that in the complaint and his statement recorded under Section 200, Cr. P. C. , the complainant categorically stated that there is land situated in khasra 456, Rakba 1. 45 hectare in moja Jasrana which belongs to him and his brother Danaram and they are in possession of the same. Revenue record has also been filed alongwith the complaint which shows that the said land is in the name of complainant and his brother.

(3.) I have also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is a case of civil nature. It is strange that the complaint is related to the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 2. 12. 1998 whereas the suit was filed in the year 1999 and stay order was granted on 29. 11. 2000. The suit was admittedly filed even after taking cognizance by the learned Trial Court; more specifically, the suit was filed on 28. 5. 1999 whereas cognizance was taken on 6. 3. 1999. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is without any force.