Dismissed

Bhup Singh v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 May 2018CRLMP/1223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It held that directing further investigation is unnecessary as the original agreement was unavailable. The trial court's decision to dismiss the application was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed. The stay petition was also dismissed. The trial court's order was affirmed.

Bhup Singh Vs State and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1223 / 2018

¶3

Bhup Singh S/o Richapal Singh, B/c Bishnoi R/o Village Bajju Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhup Singh S/o Panchiram, B/c Bishnoi R/o 1 DOL Rawla, Tehsil Ghadsana Distt. Sriganganagar (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Order

¶11

04/05/2018

¶12

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) in revision petition No.30/2016, whereby the criminal revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶13

The said revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in FR No.199/2013 arising out of FIR No.213/2013 of Police Station Sadar, Bikaner, whereby the application filed by the petitioner to direct the Investigating Authority of further investigate into the matter has been dismissed.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLMP-1223/2018]

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has registered an FIR No.213/2013 at Police Station Sadar, Bikaner with the allegation that the respondent-Bhup Singh has obtained a forged patta from the UIT, Bikaner of a plot situated at Jaisalmer Road, Gali Kalla Petrol Pump, Bikaner while producing forged documents. The police after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR has submitted a negative final report before the trial court while concluding that as a matter of fact, the plot in question was sold by the petitioner to respondent through agreement to sale and, therefore, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false.

¶17

Being aggrieved with the conclusions arrived at by the police, the petitioner has filed an application before the trial court with a prayer to direct the police authorities to further investigate into the genuineness of the agreement alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Pursuant to that, the trial court vide order dated 16.01.2014 has directed the police authorities to further investigate into the matter after obtaining copy of the agreement from the respondent.

¶18

The police has conducted the further investigation and issued notices to the respondent who informed the police that he has already submitted the original agreement with the UIT for the purpose of issuance of patta. The police has thereafter obtained a copy of the alleged agreement from the UIT and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The Forensic Science Laboratory has returned the said copy of the agreement while observing that as it is not the original copy and is only a scanned

¶19

(3 of 4)

¶20

[CRLMP-1223/2018]

¶21

copy, therefore, it cannot be examined. After receiving the said report from the FSL, the police has again filed negative final report before the court concerned.

¶22

At this stage, the petitioner has again moved an application before the trial court with a prayer to direct the police authorities to conduct further investigation in relation to the agreement in question. The trial court has rejected the said application vide order dated 17.11.2016 while observing that when the original copy of the agreement in question is not available, there is no point in directing the police to conduct further investigation in relation to that. The trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner for issuing direction to the police to conduct further investigation and kept it open for the petitioner to submit all his objections against the negative final report submitted by the police through a protest petition.

¶23

Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.11.2016, the petitioner has preferred a criminal revision petition before the revisional court, however, it refused to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision petition. Hence this petition.

¶24

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders and other material available on record, I am of the opinion that when the original copy of the agreement in question is not available, there is no point in directing the police to further investigate into the said agreement.

¶25

The trial court has rightly exercised its discretion while observing that the petitioner is free to raise all his objections

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CRLMP-1223/2018]

¶28

regarding the conclusions arrived at by the police in the negative

¶29

final report through a protest petition.

¶30

Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in this criminal misc.

¶31

petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶33

Taruna

¶34

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Bhup Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhup Singh v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Singh Vs State

Arvind Kishore Vs Smt Neha Mathur and Anr.

Dropati Vs State and Anr.

Ram Narayan Meel and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Mayank Patodia and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Mewa Singh Vs State