Judgment:
Goyal, J.
1. Since common points of law and facts are involved, both the petitions are being disposed of vide common order. The relevant facts giving rise to both the petitions are that the petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh submitted a written report at Police Station Jamwa Ramgarh on 27.10.1995 against the respondent No. 2 Gulla Ram with the averments that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 Gulla Ram had purchased a tractor No. RJ. 14 R. 3952 after obtaining loan from the Cooperative land Development Bank Ltd. Jaipur. Subsequently, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 entered into a written agreement, whereby the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 26,000/-to the respondent No. 2 and further undertook to repay the loan of the bank and retained the custody of the tractor, thereafter on 2 7.10.1995 the petitioner with a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was going to Jaipur by this tractor. On they way, 4-5 persons including respondent No. 2 Gulla Ram having lathis came in front of the tractor, started abusing the petitioner and took away his tractor and the amount of Rs. 20,000/-.
2. First Information Report No. 320/1995 under Section 379 IPC was registered. After investigation final report was submitted on the ground that it seems to be a dispute of civil nature and no such incident took place.
3. The petitioner submitted the protest petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur conducted inquiry as provided under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. But the learned Magistrate vide order dated 5.7.1999 while dismissing the protest petition accepted the final report. The learned Magistrate vide the same order dated 5.7.1999 observed that the tractor was taken form the possession of Sh. Gulla Ram during investigation and interim custody of the tractor was given by the Court to petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh. It was further observed that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were co-owners of this tractor, hence the petitioner Gopal Singh was allowed to retain the custody of this tractor.
4. The petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh filed a criminal revision No. 20/2001 against the order dated 5.7.1999 whereby the protest petition was dismissed and the final report was accepted. This revision was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide order dated 6.10.2001. The petitioner has challenged both the orders dated 5.7.1999 and 6.10.2001 vide this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. The respondent No. 2 also filed criminal appeal No. 1/2000 (59/1999) against the same order dated 5.7.1999 whereby the Magistrate delivered the tractor to the petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh. This appeal was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide judgment dated 6.10.2001. Hence this revision by the petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. A preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the revision was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Reliance is placed upon Ranjan Kumar Machananda v. State of Karnataka (1). In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dismissal of revision by Sessions Judge does not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reliance is place upon Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and Ors. (2) and Jitender Kumar Jainvs. State of Delhi (3). In view of these two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. On merits, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Trial Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge both appreciated the evidence as if they were deciding the case finally. According to learned counsel, at the stage of taking cognizance of offence the Court should consider only averments made in the complaint and the Court is not required to shift and appreciate the evidence at that stage. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that both the Courts below arrived at concurrent findings that no such occurrence, as stated in the F.I.R. ever took place and there is no reason to interfere by this Court in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (4), it was held that at the stage of taking cognizance the Court should consider only averments made in the complaint or the charge-sheet and the Court is not required to shift and appreciate the evidence at that stage. On careful consideration of the rival submissions and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rashmi Kumar (supra) case, 1 find no illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below. No doubt, the Court at the stage of taking cognizance is not required to appreciate the evidence in depth but the Court has to seem prima facie and having considered the entire material available on the record both the Courts came to this conclusion that no such occurrence as stated in F.I.R. ever took place, hence the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has got no merit. Now the revision petition is taken up. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 were co-owners of this tractor, therefore, there was no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 5.7.1999 and thus the appellant order dated 6.10.2001 for handing over the possessions of this tractor to respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed State of Rajasthan (5), wherein it was held that in view of the provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C., the tractor was taken form the possession of the accused and the accused produced the sale deed in his favour but the registration stands in the name of the complaint, hence the complainant was entitled for delivery of the tractor. Another judgment relied upon is that M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Anr. (6), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings under Section 406, 468 and other Section of IPC should be quashed when the documents relied on by complainant, were in dispute in civil suits. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 contended that the entire claim of the petitioner was based upon one agreement and form No. 30 said to be executed and signed by respondent No. 2 Sh. Gulla Ram. According to Sh. Gulla Ram, both the documents did not bear his signatures and Sh. Gulla Ram lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioner and police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against petitioner for offence under Section 420, 406, 467, 471 IPC and that criminal case is still pending in the competent court and thus the very basis of the claim of the petitioner goes away. It was next contended that since the police submitted final report and the Magistrate accepted the final report dismissing the protest petition, therefore, the tractor should have been delivered to Sh. Gulla Ram under Section 452 Cr.P.C. as this tractor during investigation was taken from the possession of Sh. Gulla Ram. Reliance is placed upon Lumba Ram v. State and Anr. (7). I have considered the rival submissions, and find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 6.10.2001 passed in criminal appeal. The claim of the petitioner was based upon the agreement and form No. 30 which were executed and signed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner according to the case of petitioner. But this agreement and the from No. 30 according to FSL report did not bear the signatures of the respondent No. 2 Sh. Gulla Ram and thus a charge sheet under Section 420, 406, 467, 471 I.P.C. came to be filed against the accused petitioner Sh. Gopal Singh for making false signatures of the respondent No. 2 Sh Gulla ram and that criminal case is still pending trial. Apart from this the learned Appellate Judge rightly observed that the Magistrate should have passed the order for Superdigi of this tractor under Section 452 Cr.P.C. as the final report had already been submitted that that was accepted by the Trial Magistrate, therefore, this revision petition has also got no merit. Consequently, both the petitions are hereby dismissed.