Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jetha Ram vs State on 24 February, 2021
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1293/2019
Jetha Ram S/o Dayaji, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Mali,
Resident Of Badgaon, Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Mohammed Bhai S/o Kamrudeen, By Caste Daudi Bohra
(Muslim), R/o Badgaon, Police Station Raniwara, Dist.
Jalore.
3. Raghu Nath Singh S/o Parbat Singh, Caste Rajput, R/o
Dhamseen, Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore.
4. Ramesh Kumar S/o Lallu Ram, By Caste Joshi, R/o
Dhamseen, Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore.
5. Surat Singh S/o Dharm Singh, Caste Rajput, R/o
Badgaon, Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore.
6. Smt. Babi Devi W/o Faulal, Caste Jingar, R/o Badgaon,
Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore.
7. Narna Ram S/o Nag Ji, Caste Meghwal, R/o Rupawati,
Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore.
8. Indra Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Caste Rajput, R/o Negala,
Tehsil Dhanera, District Banaskanta (Gujrat), At Present
Raipur Dairy, Police Station Mandar, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 24/02/2021 The present misc petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in (Downloaded on 25/02/2021 at 08:48:22 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1293/2019] Criminal Revision No. 44/2015 whereby, the learned revisional Court affirmed the order dated 17.10.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Raniwara, District Jalore by which the trial court rejected the protest petition and refused to take cognizance against the private respondents No. 2 to 8.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Raniwara against seven accused for offence under Section 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120B IPC stating therein that land falling in Khasra NO. 778, 780, 781 is in joint ownership of complainant's sons. It was stated that the accused Raghunath in order to grab the land executed a special power of attorney in his favour in respect of Khasra NO. 777 and on the basis of said power of attorney, he filed a suit for declaration of permanent injunction against the khatedars of Khasra NO.778 and he erected fencing. It was alleged that land of complainant was encroached by Raghunath Singh. The said complaint was sent to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and FIR No. 89/2014 was registered at Police Station, Raniwara for aforesaid offences.
The police after investigation filed FR in this case. The petitioner thereafter, filed a protest petition, however, the trial court rejected the protest petition and refused to take cognizance against the accused persons.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal but the revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.11.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is ample evidence against the respondents No. 2 to 8 with regard to (Downloaded on 25/02/2021 at 08:48:22 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1293/2019] forgery committed by the accused persons but the trial court without considering the evidence on record, rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. The revisional Court has also affirmed the order passed by the trial court in a cursory manner without assigning any cogent reason.
I have heard the contentions of the petitioner and carefully gone through the record.
On perusal of the FR submitted by the police, it is evident that police has not found the offence under Section 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 120B IPC made out against the accused persons. The police after detailed investigation has given cogent reasons for arriving at above conclusion. In these circumstances, the trial court refused to take cognizance against the respondent no.2 to 8. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court after taking into consideration the entire material on record has refused to take cognizance against the respondent no.2 to 8 and the conclusion of trial court has also been upheld by the revisional Court. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. The present misc. petition is accordingly dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 67-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 25/02/2021 at 08:48:22 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)