Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravi Prakash vs State & Anr on 8 May, 2018
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4610 / 2017
Ravi Prakash S/o Late Bhagwan Das, By Caste Bhargava Resident
of Near Mehandipur Balaji Mandir, Ward No. 28, Ratangarh District
Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Murari Lal S/o Surya Prakash, By Caste Sharma, Resident of
Ward No. 3, Near Gomji Sunar Ka Kuan, Ratangarh District Churu.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 08/05/2018 This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 1.9.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu (for short 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No.03/2016 whereby, the aforesaid revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.1.2016 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu (for short 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.17/2016 whereby, charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 386 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR against the petitioner with the allegations that on (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4610/2017] 24.4.2015, the petitioner has approached him at his house and stated that he had purchased a piece of land for an amount of rupees twenty four lac, however, he is having only rupees twelve lac fifty thousand and if the rest of the amount i.e. rupees twelve lac and fifty thousand is given to him, he will get half of the piece of land registered in his name by way of a sale deed. It is stated by the respondent No.2 that as the petitioner is his relative and known to him from last so many years, he believed him and delivered rupees twelve lac and fifty thousand. It is alleged that after some time when the respondent No.2 asked for registration of the sale deed, the petitioner made certain excuses and assured him that he will get half of the piece of land registered in his name within a short period. It is further alleged by the respondent that after passing of some time, the petitioner had refused to return the money and threatened him with dire consequences while stating that he is a 'tantrik' and he can destroy him.
The police has registered an FIR against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 386 IPC and after thorough investigation has filed charge-sheet against him for the aforesaid offences.
The trial court after taking into consideration the material available on record particularly the statements of some of the persons, in whose presence, the respondent No.2 has delivered rupees twelve lac and fifty thousand to the petitioner with assurance that half of the piece of land will be registered in his name and after taking into consideration the statements of witnesses, who were present at the time of negotiations arrived at (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4610/2017] between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 has concluded that prima facie evidence for framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 386 IPC is available on record and ordered for framing charges against him for the aforesaid offences.
The revisional court after taking into consideration the evidence as well as the material available on record has observed that prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 386 against the petitioner is available on record and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in framing of charges for the aforesaid offences.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, I do not find any illegality in the same as prima facie evidence for framing of charges against the petitioner is available on record.
Otherwise also, this criminal misc. petition, though filed while invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred as per Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this misc. petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
Ms rathore