Full Judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.
PETITION NO.3156/2012 Gopal & Anr.
versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.Date of order : 9.10.2014 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.Ramesh Purohit, for the petitioneRs.Mr.O.P.Rathi, P.P.<><><> The instant misc.
petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Cr.
Revision No.284/2012 affirming the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by learned Gram Nyayalaya, Mandal in Cr.
Regular Case No.95/2012 whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447 and 323/34 I.P.C.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original Khatedars of the land being Bhagwati Das and Smt.
Chandi sold the land to the petitioners way back in the year 2009.
The agreement was executed on 21.8.2009 and on the very same day, possession of the land was handed over to the petitioneRs.Thereafter despite repeated requests, the Khatedars failed to get the sale deed registered.
The petitioners apprehending faul play filed an 2 application for temporary injunction wherein the Court passed an order of status quo.
The complainant Krishan Gopal filed the F.I.R.No.82/2011 alleging that the petitioners trespassed into the land which had been purchased by his wife from same Khatedars in the year 2011.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's prosecution in this case is totally unwarranted.
On the one hand, in the F.I.R.filed by the petitioner Gopal the original Khatears Bhagwati Das and Chandi are being prosecuted for the offence of cheating etc.by reselling the land which they had earlier sold to the accused party and on the other hand the petitioners are being prosecuted for trespass into the very same land which they own and are in possession.
He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet as well as the order taking cognizance against the petitioners are absolutely illegal and amount to gross abuse of the process of the Court.
He further submits that the I.O.conducted a lopsided investigation and despite the documents pertaining to the earlier F.I.R.filed by the petitioner Gopal being taken on record, no enquiry was made in relation thereto before filing result of the investigation.
He thus prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh investigation in the light of civil suit filed by the petitioners as well as the earlier 3 F.I.R.No.66/2011 registered at P.S.Bagor, Dist.
Bhilwara.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 & 3 complainant despite service.
Learned P.P.opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioneRs.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P.and have gone through the material available on record.
Admittedly the petitioneRs.purchased the land in question through an agreement executed by the Khatedars Bhagwati Das and Smt.Chandi way back on 21.8.2009.
The agreement bears a specific recital that the possession was handed over to the purchaseRs.The petitioner Gopal had filed an application for temporary injunction on 24.8.2011 and it is reported that an order of interim injunction was passed in the said application.
The complainant party claims to have purchased the same chunk land from the Khatedars at a much later date.
The petitioner filed an FIR No.66/2011 against the Khatedars for fraudulent resale of the land.
A charge-sheet was filed in that case against the khatedars Bhagwati Das and Smt.
Chandi for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.with a specific finding that the possession of the land was handed over to the purchaser Gopal at the time of execution of the 4 sale deed i.e.in the year 2009.
Though the F.I.R.No.66/2011 was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner Gopal Lal at the very same police station Bagor just few months prior to registration of F.I.R.by Kishan Gopal, the I.O.who conducted the investigation of F.I.R.No.82/2011 totally ignored the facts collected during the investigation of the earlier F.I.R.registered at the same police station.
It appears that lopsided investigation was conducted and without making any enquiry from the petitioneRs.the I.O.filed the charge sheet in hot haste.
In this background this Court is of the opinion that while setting aside the order of cognizance, the matter deserves further investigation in light of the facts collected in the F.I.R.No.66/2011 registered at the same police station.
The charge-sheet filed in ignorance of the said investigation is without any basis.
The misc.
petition thus succeeds and is hereby allowed.
The impugned orders dated 9.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara and the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Mandal are hereby quashed.
The original charge-sheet shall be returned back to the I.O.who shall investigate the matter after taking into account the material collected during investigation of the F.I.R.No.66/2011 registered by the 5 petitioner Gopal as well as the documents of the civil suit filed by him.
The I.O.shall file the result of the investigation in the Court concerned as per law after concluding investigation as directed above.
(SANDEEP MEHTA).J.
/Sushil/