MST. NANNI Vs. KEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.5.2003 whereby the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur had allowed the revision petition filled by the accused respondents and had quashed the cognizance order dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate against the accused respondents for offence under Section 420 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 3.7.1992, the petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court wherein she had stated that one Jameel Khan @ Abdul Rehman had fraudulently sold her land to Kanhaiya, Maddu, Shriphool and Maujiram by claiming himself to be the owner of the land. The said sale deed was executed in their favour by Jameel Khan. In the said sale deed the accused respondents, Kedar and Heera Lal, had identified Jameel Khan. The said complaint was subsequently sent for further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (henceforth to be referred to as the 'Code' for short). After a thorough investigation the police filed a charge-sheet only against Jameel Khan @ Abdul Rehman for offence under Section 420 IPC. Even before the trial began, the petitioner had submitted an application under Section 319 of the Code wherein she had claimed that Jameel Khan had shown himself to be the owner of her land by changing his name and his father's name. Both the accused respondents had identified Jameel Khan as the owner of the land. However, both the accused respondents were well aware of the fact that Jameel Khan is not the true owner of the land and is not even the person he is claiming to be while signing the sale-deed. Therefore, both the accused respondents were equally a party to the offence of cheating. Hence cognizance should be taken against them under Section 319 of the Code. However, as the trial had not started by then, therefore, vide order dated 8.5.1997, the learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the said application while giving liberty to the petitioner to file the said application after the evidence was recorded. Thus after the evidence of the prosecution was over, the learned P.P. again filed an application under Section 319 of the Code wherein he prayed that cognizance be taken against the accused respondents for offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. Vide order dated 1.10.2002 the learned trial court was pleased to take cognizance against the accused respondents and to summon them by bailable warrants. Since the accused respondents were aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2002 they filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. Vide order dated 1.5.2003, the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur was pleased to accept the revision petition and quashed and set aside the order dated 1.10.2002. Hence, this present petition before us filed by the complainant petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the accused respondents went to the office of the Registrar for registering the sale deed allegedly signed by Jameel Khan @ Abdul Rehman, they were well aware of the fact that he is neither the owner of the land which was being sold, nor the person he claims to be. But in order to cause a wrongful loss to the petitioner and a wrongful gain to the Jameel Khan they entered into a criminal conspiracy to sell her land. Thus, they were conspirators for commission of the offence committed by Jameel Khan @ Abdul Rehman. He has further contended that only those persons who are well acquainted with the seller and who can identify the seller would be taken by the seller to the Registrar's office. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against them after recording the evidence of the prosecution witness. He has further contended that the impugned order dated 1.5.2003 is a non-speaking order as the learned Sessions Judge has merely stated that there is no basis for taking cognizance against the accused respondents. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not stated any reason for coming to the conclusion that the cognizance order is an illegal one.