Dismissed

Harish v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2023CRLMP/316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the dismissal of a revision petition. The bench held that the lower courts were correct in accepting the police Final Report after thorough investigation, finding no case against the accused and no perversity in the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition dismissed; impugned orders of 17.09.2013 and 01.09.2021 are affirmed.

Harish Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011113]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 316/2022

¶4

Harish S/o Amarji, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Talwada, Police Station Sadar, Banswar, District Banswara.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Maheshchandra Joshi S/o Jawahar Lal Joshi, R/o Village Talwada, Tehsil And District Banswara.

¶9

Suresh S/o Jawahar Lal Joshi, R/o Village Talwada, Tehsil And District Banswara.

¶10

Gajanand Joshi S/o Jawahar Lal Joshi, R/o Village Talwada, Tehsil And District Banswara.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Mertia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP Mr.R.S.Bhati

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment

¶14

20/04/2023

¶15

Instant misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 17.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara accepting the FR filed by the police in FIR No. 129/2011.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara to the effect that complainant belongs to Scheduled Tribe and the complainant and his brother are having ownership and possession of land bearing Khasra NO. 2757/2 measuring 1

[2023/RJJD/011113]

[CRLMP-316/2022]

(2 of 3)

bigha 4 biswa situated in village Talwada. The mother of complainant sold the land 30x70 ft to the respondent accused persons in the year 1983. However, the accused dishonestly got the sale deed registered on 05.03.1983 mentioning 30x120 ft instead of 30x70 ft. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the Police station, Sadar, Banswara for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered the case being FIR No. 129/2011 and after investigation, submitted FR that no case is made out against the accused respondents. After considering the evidence collected during investigation and recording statement of witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the trial court accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition vide order dated 17.09.2013. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara which too was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2021.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the material aspect of the matter, the trial court mechanically rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner only on the ground that civil suit is pending between the parties. It is argued that on the basis of statement of the complainant, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused respondent. It is argued that the petitioner has clearly stated in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that the accused respondent dishonestly got the land measuring 30 x 120 ft registered in their name whereas only 74 ft land on north side was converted and sold to the respondents. It is argued that the investigating officer has not investigated the matter in correct perspective and therefore, it is

[2023/RJJD/011113]

[CRLMP-316/2022]

(3 of 3)

prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders and submitted that both the courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition and revision petition respectively, which does not called for any interference.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned so also the record.

¶28

It is not disputed that after thorough investigation, the police submitted a final report to the effect that no case is made out against the respondents as the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case against the respondent. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara after considering the Final report submitted by the police, rejected the protest petition on the said ground. The revision petition filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Banswara by way of a detailed order. In the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for disbelieving the negative Final report filed by the police after thorough investigation. Learned court below after considering the entire material on record, has accepted the Final report filed by the police. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 17.09.2013 & 01.09.2021. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed.

¶29

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶30

189-BJSH/-

Harish v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Kumar Tailor Vs State of Rajasthan

Tarun Gehlot Vs State

Abdul Rashid Khan Vs State

Jagmeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan