Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohd. Akil vs State & Anr on 15 November, 2017
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 343 / 2016
izkFkhZ &
eksgEen vkfdy iq= Jh mejko [kk¡ iBku] fuoklh & cEck ekSgYyk] NksVh gosyh ds ikl]
tks/kiqj "kgj] tks/kiqjA
cuke
vizkFkhZx.k &
1- jktLFkku jkT;A
2- ljnkj [kk¡ iq= Jh mejko [kk¡ iBku] fuoklh & cEck ekSgYyk] NksVh gosyh ds ikl]
tks/kiqj "kgj] tks/kiqjA
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.M. Naveen.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, P.P.
Mr. Farzand Ali.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment Date of Judgment:- 15/11/2017 By way of this revision, the petitioner complainant Mohd. Akil has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Revision No.8/2016 whereby, the revisional court accepted the revision preferred by the respondent Sardan Khan against the order dated 31.10.2015 passed by the learned ACJM No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.93/2010. The learned ACJM had directed framing of charges against the respondent for the offence under Section 420/120B, 467/120B, 468/120B and 471/120B IPC. The revisional court set aside the said order by accepting the revision preferred by the accused.
I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by (2 of 4) [CRLR-343/2016] the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and other material on record.
The petitioner complainant set up a case in his complaint that Mehmooda Begum (since deceased) wife of the respondent accused who happens to be the brother of the accused petitioner owned a piece of land admeasuring 2132 square yards. She sold a part of the said land admeasuring 1396 square yards to Smt. Wahida Begum (mother of the present complainant and the accused). The sale deed was executed in the year 1983 and the petitioner Sardan Khan stood as a witness therein. Mehmooda Begum executed yet another sale deed in favour of Jhoomarlal Rathi for land admeasuring 1396 square yards. The complainant has set up a case that as Mehmooda Begum had sold 1396 sq. yards of her land to Smt. Wahida Begum, only 736 sq. yards of land would be remaining in balance and thus, Mehmooda Begum and the accused Sardan Khan who stood as a witness in both the sale deeds, committed the offences of cheating and forgery. The police, after thorough investigation filed a negative final report in the case. Upon a protest petition being filed, learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused Mehmooda Begum for the offences under Sections 467, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and against the accused petitioner Sardar Khan for the offence under Section 120B IPC vide order dated 31.10.2015. Mehmooda Begum expired whereafter, the proceedings were dropped to her extent and the accused Sardan Khan was also discharged from the offence under Section 120B IPC vide order dated 27.08.2011. The complainant carried the matter in revision to the Sessions Court. The revisional (3 of 4) [CRLR-343/2016] court set aside the order dated 27.08.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate and the case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration on the aspect of charges. Upon remand, the trial court proceeded to pass the order dated 31.10.2015 directing framing of charges against the accused Sardar Khan for the offences under Section 420/120B, 467/120B, 468/120B and 471/120B IPC who filed a revision against the said order which came to be allowed by the revisional court by the order dated 01.03.2016. Hence, the complainant petitioner has approached this Court by way of this revision.
Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the orders under challenge as well as the record, I am of the firm opinion that the revisional court was perfectly justified in setting aside the order framing charge passed by the trial court against the accused respondent. Even if the highest allegations of the complainant are accepted to be true on their face value, obviously the person cheated if at all, in the case at hand could be Jhoomarlal Rathi the subsequent purchaser. The disputed sale deed was executed by Smt. Mehmooda Begum who has since passed away. Even as per the complainant's admitted allegations, the so called fraudulent sale deed pertaining to the subsequent sale of land executed by Smt. Mehmooda Begum cannot be brought within the sweep of a false document as defined in Section 464 IPC because neither was any signature forged nor was the document antedated, etc. Thus apparently, the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are ex-facie not made out at all (4 of 4) [CRLR-343/2016] from the admitted prosecution allegations. In order to prosecute the respondent Sardar Khan for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the complainant was required to allege and establish that the accused offered him any fraudulent inducement and thereby made him to part with some valuable security. However, no such allegation was made by the complainant.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the firm opinion that the situation of the case at hand is covered on all fours by the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (209)8 SCC 751 which was rightly relied upon by the revisional court to set aside the trial court's order framing charges. The order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in revision does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, irregularity or perversity whatsoever so as to require interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this court.
Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Record be returned to the trial court.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.
tikam daiya/