Jaipur Road Madanganj Kishangarh Dist. Ajmer Raj v. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

Poosa Lal S/o Shri Mangi Lal, R/o Mahaveer Colony Madanganj Kishangarh Dist. Ajmer Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Nasuna, Dy. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 25/03/2025 Order

1. Instant S.B. Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellant- accused Gopal Soni and Ramesh Shama aggrieved from order dated 15.11.2018 in sessions case No. 78/2014 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Ajmer whereby a charge under Section 447, 427, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(v) of SC/ST (POA) was framed against the appellants.

2. Learned Counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal would submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated only to settle a property dispute. He submitted that by agreement to sale dated 29.05.1989, the land in question was sold to accused Ramesh Sharma and after [2025:RJ-JP:17055] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-545/2019] handing over possession to Ramesh Sharma, the complainant made another agreement in 1996 with Gopal. He further stated that subsequent to both agreements, all three have agreed to nullify earlier agreement dated 29.05.1989 entered with Ramesh Sharma. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that in 2005, the land was converted and a sale deed was executed. He also submitted that a civil suit was filed and to settle the score, the complainant has filed FIR in the year 2005, but after detailed investigation, police has submitted a negative closure report. He further relied upon the statements recorded by police and submitted that no case is made out from the factual evidence of the complainant and in detailed report submitted by police, each and every fact was answered by police. He further submitted that after closure report, a protest petition was filed before learned ACJM, Kishangrh and learned ACJM Kishangarh has taken cognizance without any proper reason. He further submitted that the possession of land is with appellants-accused and at the time of cognizance, learned Magistrate Court has failed to take note of negative closure report. He also referred the order to frame charge and submitted that the impugned order is a cryptic order and passed without assigning sufficient reason. He also submitted that possession is with accused and no injury whatsoever was caused to complainant or any other person. At last, he submitted that this is a classic example of abuse of process of law.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. None present for complainant. [2025:RJ-JP:17055] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-545/2019]

4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

5. The complainant (respondent No.2) was duly informed about filing of present appeal, but no one is present to contest the appeal.

6. A perusal of material of record clearly indicate that FIR No. 289/2005 was registered at Police Station, Madanganj District Ajmer by respondent No.2, Poosa Lal and after investigation, a negative closure report (FR) is filed by police as offence under Sections 143, 447, 427, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is not made out. The respondent No.2 has filed a protest petition and learned ACJM, Kishangarh after rejecting final closure report has taken cognizance against both the appellants. After committal the matter to learned Special Court, the Special Court has framed charges against the appellants-accused.

7. A perusal of documents available on record clearly indicate that complainant has mentioned that plot No. 22/23 situated in Khasra No. 431/01 is a converted piece of land and a Patta is in the name of complainant. The complainant has alleged that due to certain transactions and incident, he was forced to put signature on blank stamp papers, as he is having trust upon Ramesh Sharma.

8. During investigation, police has found that complainant has initially entered into an agreement on 29.05.1989 and received the sale consideration. Thereafter, another agreement was entered with Gopal Soni on 21.03.1996 and complainant again accepted the sale consideration. The police has found that complainant is not in possession of disputed land. As per police report, Gopal [2025:RJ-JP:17055] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-545/2019] Soni has filed a civil suit No. 23/2006 in Court at Kishangarh. We have gone through the statement recorded by police and material available on record. No other evidence is available on record, whereby the court can presume that there exists a prima facie case to frame a charge under Sections 447 and 427. There is no injury on the body of complainant so charge under Section 323 IPC is not made out. The land has already been converted before registration of case, moreover, the matter pertains to a dispute relating to property and use of police or a criminal Court for the purpose of settling score is not appreciable.

9. It is generally considered inappropriate and an abuse of process of legal process to settle a civil dispute by filing a criminal case. In cases like present one, the Trial Court is duty bound to carefully scrutinize the material on record to determine whether the essential ingredients of a crime to charge accused are present. In case of Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. The State of Bihar AIR 2020 SC 1079 while quashing criminal proceeding initiated to settle civil dispute observed that a civil dispute cannot be given color of criminal dispute.

10. The trial without considering the material on record and legal position has framed the charges against the appellants. Since, there is no evidence to frame charge under any of the provision of IPC or SC/ST (POA) Act, therefore, the trial court has committed serious error while framing the charge against the appellants\, and impugned order itself is a non-application of mind.

11. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the instant appeal is hereby allowed and an order dated 15.11.2018 in Session case No. 78/2014 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from [2025:RJ-JP:17055] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-545/2019] charge under section 447, 427, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(v) of SC/ST (POA), Act.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. MONU /192-S (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J