Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Lal Jain And Ors vs State And Anr on 24 September, 2018
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 645/2018
Supriya Parihar W/o Ashu Parihar, B/c Meghwal R/o Gram
Gawada Kasba Khiwada Tehsil Rani, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohanlal S/o Shri Jeevraj Ji B/c Jain R/o Khiwada Tehsil Raji
District Pali (Raj.)
2. Nainmal Jain S/o Shri Bhurmal Jain B/c Jain
3. Vijayraj Jain S/o Shri Chouthmal Jain B/c Jain R/o Khiwada
Tehsil Rani District Pali (Raj.)
4. Laldas S/o Shri Hemdas Ji B/c Vaishnav R/o Siwas Tehsil Rani
District Pali (Raj.)
5. Praveen Malviya S/o Shri Bhomaram B/c Malviya R/o Khiwada
Tehsil Rani District Pali (Raj.)
6. Rajudas Vaishnav S/o Shri Narayan Das Vaishnav B/c Vaishnav
R/o Khiwada Tehsil Rani District Pali (Raj.)
7. Shripal S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal Vaishnav B/c Vaishnav R/o
Khiwada Tehsil Rani District Pali (Raj.)
8. State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 587/2018
1. Mohan Lal Jain S/o Shri Jeevraj Jain
2. Nainmal Jain S/o Shri Bhoormal Jain
3. Vijayraj Jain S/o Shri Chauthmal Jain
4. Laldas S/o Shri Hemdas,
5. Praveen Malviya S/o Bomaram Ji Malviya
6. Rajudas Vaishnav S/o Narayan Das
7. Sripal Vaishnav S/o Kanhaiyalal, All Are Residents Of
Village Khiwada, District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Supriya Parihar W/o Ashu Parihar, Resident Of Village
Gawada Presently Residing At Khiwada, Tehsil Rani,
(2 of 6) [CRLR-645/2018]
District Pali.
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Supriya Parihar present in person
along with her husband Mr. Ashu
Parihar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP
Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order 24/09/2018
1. Petitioner Supriya Parihar wife of Ashu Parihar has preferred revision petition No.645/2018 aggrieved by order dated 20.04.2018 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Pali. Petitioner in criminal revision petition No.645/2018 in the prayer clause has prayed that the respondent No.1 to 7 be held guilty for offence of theft and the short coming in the impugned order be rectified.
2. Mohan Lal Jain and others have also preferred revision petition No.587/2018 aggrieved by the same order dated 20.04.2018 vide which Court has taken cognizance for offence under Sections 323, 452, 354 & 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST Act. Petitioners in criminal revision petition No.587/2018 have prayed that impugned order be quashed and set aside and petitioners be discharged from the offences alleged against them.
3. As both the revisions assail a common order, the criminal revisions are being decided by this common order.
4. It is contended by Supriya Parihar who is present in person and her husband Ashu Parihar that they had taken the premises on rent on 01.12.2013 at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. On 26.02.2015 possession of the shop was forcefully taken by the (3 of 6) [CRLR-645/2018] landlord on the pretext that they have sold the shop and the garments which were lying in the shop were shifted to the first floor which is her residence.
5. It is contended that landlord is having connections with the local MLA, Member of Parliament and police. Police has not done free and fair investigation and has submitted negative final report under undue pressure. On specific query made as to whether they have engaged any counsel, Supriya and Ashu Parihar stated that they have engaged twenty lawyers but all have joined hands with the landlord. It is also contended that garments worth around Rs.80 lacs were lying in the shop and the same has not been recovered by the police. It is also contended that from the recovery memo it is revealed that articles belonging to Supriya Parihar were recovered by the police which goes to show that landlord had forcefully taken possession of the disputed shop.
6. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in revision petition No.587/2018 has vehemently opposed the revision petition filed by Supriya Parihar. It is contended that Supriya Parihar alongwith her husband gave peaceful possession of the disputed shop, photographs of which are available on record. It is also mentioned that due to several complaints lodged by the Supriya Parihar, the matter was investigated by three Additional Superintendent of Police and one Deputy Superintendent of Police all of whom have submitted negative final reports.
7. It is also contended that complainant has lodged a false FIR, to take defence in eight to ten cheque dishonour complainants lodged against her.
8. It is also contended that there was no force whatsoever and Supriya Parihar vacated the premises on her own as she was not (4 of 6) [CRLR-645/2018] able to pay the rent. My attention has also been drawn towards the document dated 26.02.2018 which bears the signatures of Supriya Parihar and her husband. This document was signed by Supriya Parihar and her husband, as is evident from the photographs and as admitted by Supriay and Ashu Parihar.
9. It is also contended that in spite of the fact that investigation was conducted by three Additional Superintendent of Police and One Deputy Superintendent of Police and all have submitted negative final report and there was no material against the petitioners of criminal revision No.587/2018, court below has erred in taking cognizance against petitioners of revision petition No.587/2018.
10. I have considered the contentions.
11. A specific query was put by this Court to Supriya Parihar to produce the rent receipts, on which her husband, who is also present in Court replied that they have deposited rent of January, 2018 through bank and that they used to pay rent to the landlord but no receipts were given to them. Since, Supriya Parihar and her husband are not having receipts, the fact mentioned in the document that rent was due has to be accepted.
12. As regards the present FIR is concerned, there is delay in lodging of the FIR. Supriya Parihar has mentioned that on 26.02.2015 at 8.00 a.m. petitioners of petition No.587/2018 entered the residential accommodation of Supriya Parihar and her husband. They were armed with weapons including knife, they gave beating to Ashu Parihar husband of Supriya Parihar and out- raged modesty of Supriya Parihar by tearing her blouse, they also threatened Supriya Parihar and Ashu Parihar. It is mentioned in the FIR that under this threat the entire readymade garments (5 of 6) [CRLR-645/2018] which were lying in the shop were shifted to first floor and forcefully photographs were also clicked showing handing over of possession to the landlord. It is also mentioned in the FIR that jewellery of Supriya Parihar and Rs. 2.00 lacs cash were also snatched by the petitioners of revision petition No.587/2018.
13. The FIR appears to be concocted, there are no marks of injuries on the person of Ashu Parihar and he is seen signing the document and has given possession of the shop with a smile on his face. The fact that cheque dishonour cases were pending against Supriya Parihar also points out to the fact that Supriya and Ashu Parihar were under financial constraints as they were not able to pay the persons from whom they had taken garments on credit. On inquiry it is also revealed from Supriya Parihar and her husband had not filed any civil litigation for taking back possession of the shop.
14. Police has recovered some household articles etc. from the house which was given on rent to Supriya Parihar and her husband. No garments have been recovered by the police. There was evidence of the driver that the readymade garments were shifted from the shop in dispute to the village of Ashu Parihar. Investigation was conducted by three Additional Superintendent of Police and one Deputy Superintendent of Police and all have submitted negative final report four times and they were all justified in doing so. Form the documentary evidence, it is revealed that Supriya Parihar and her husband had peacefully handed over the possession of the shop to the landlord and thereafter they have filed this FIR after two days. The order passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed and set aside (6 of 6) [CRLR-645/2018] as there was no material for taking cognizance against petitioners of revision petition No.587/2018.
15. Consequently, revision petition filed by Supriya Parihar is dismissed and the revision petition filed by the petitioners in revision petition No.587/2018 is allowed. Proceedings pending before the Court below are quashed and orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Arun/55-56 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)