The Court quashed criminal proceedings and cognizance orders, holding that the trial court erred in taking cognizance while a civil revenue suit regarding the disputed land was pending between the parties.
Quashing of order dated 23.05.2013 taking cognizance and order dated 08.07.2015 dismissing revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:34442]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5514/2015
All R/o Dariba Tehsil Neemka Thana, Distt. Sikar
---Accused-Petitioner
Versus
---Non-petitioner
----Complainant non-petitioner
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP |
| For Complainant(s) | : Mr. Gagan Sharma, Adv. for |
| Mr. Sanjay Rahar, Adv. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 14/08/2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint No.349/2013 and order dated 08.07.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, whereby the said court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 23.05.2013 passed by
[2024:RJ-JP:34442]
[CRLMP-5514/2015]
(2 of 3)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 379 and 504 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is long dispute between the parties in connection with agriculture land of Khasra Nos.1103, 1109 to 1113 and 1121 to 1127, 1129, 1138, 1139 and 1117 to 1120. Matter is pending before revenue court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that complainant lodged an FIR No.812/2011 at Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 379 and 427 IPC in which after investigation, negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Complainant had also lodged a complaint on 10.04.2013. The learned Magistrate sent complaint for enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in which police submitted a report that no offence was found to have been made out. The complainant also filed another complaint in which complainant himself was examined. The police submitted its report. After that, trial court without considering the facts took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 379 and 504 IPC vide order dated 23.05.2013. Petitioners challenged the said order by way of revision but revisional court dismissed the same vide order dated 08.07.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there was no eye witness of occurrence. Revenue suit was pending between the parties. Possession of the land is with the petitioners. So, orders of the trial court as well as revisional court be set aside.
[2024:RJ-JP:34442]
[CRLMP-5514/2015]
(3 of 3)
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 pleads no instructions in this matter.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders.
It is an admitted position that revenue suit is pending between the parties. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed error in taking the cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 379 and 504 IPC and revisional court also committed error in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. So, petition filed by the petitioners, deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The order dated 23.05.2013 passed by the trial court taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 147, 447, 379 and 504 IPC and the order dated 08.07.2015 passed by revisional court are set aside.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /70
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of offences where a revenue dispute regarding the same subject matter is pending.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed when the civil suit regarding the land possession is pending before the revenue court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Heera
State Of Rajasthan
Banshi
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
