Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioners both the petitions are inter-related to each other. Therefore, common arguments have been raised.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.03.2009, one Prabhu Das sent a complaint to the office of Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, wherein he claimed that the SDO, Khajuwala had announced a scheme for allotment of land situated in the Indira Gandhi Canal Scheme. Prabhu Das, and his brothers, Shanker Das and Bhagwan Singh, were interested in getting certain lands allotted in the canal area. In pursuance of their plan, Prabhu Das wanted an allotment in Chak No.3 RMA, Murabba No.137/58, Shanker Das wanted the land in Chak No.3 RMA, Murabba No.137/59, and Bhawan Singh wanted a land in Chak No.3 RMA, Murabba No.137/57. For this purpose, on 03.01.2008 all of them deposited their applications alongwith Rs.500/- each in the office of SDO, Khajuwala. One Mr. Navratan contacted the complainant and his brothers and stated that merely by depositing the applications, they would not be allotted a land. He informed them that they are required "to spend some money". In case, they were willing to spend some money, he would ensure that the land is duly allotted to them. Navratan also informed them that he knows the officers in the SDO office. He further convinced them that if they were willing to give Rupees forty lacs, he could get them the lands as per their desire. He promised them that he would give them the allotment letter. He also promised that he would make sure that the entries in the revenue record were made, and the possession of the land would be given to them. Believing the assurance given by Navratan, on 18.01.2008, they paid Rupees seven lacs to him. Few days later, Navratan met them and told them that the remaining amount has to be deposited with the government by March 2008. Relying on his statement, on 15.03.2008, they paid him the remainder amount of Rupees seven lacs. Navratan promised them that the moment he receives the receipts, he would hand them over to the complainant and his brothers. However, even after a lapse of few months, Navratan did not handover the receipts. Whenever they contacted him, he evaded them. On 19.05.2008, Navratan met them and handed over the copies of allotment letters allegedly signed by Harvindra Kumar Sharma, as the SDO Khajuwala, i.e. by the present petitioner. He further promised that he would give them the original allotment letter as well as the copies of the receipts. Despite his assurances, he never fulfilled his promises. Therefore, in October 2008, the complainant contacted the office of the SDO. The officers at the SDO office claimed that the signatures were, indeed, that of Havindra Kumar Sharma. But they also informed the complainant that the allotment letters were not issued by the office. Meanwhile, Mr. Sharma was transferred out of the office at Khajuwala. Whenever they tried to contact Navratan, he informed them that the needful could not be done as Mr. Sharma has already been transferred and the elections of the Legislative Assembly were to begin. When pressurized, Navratan gave them a promissory note. But despite giving of the promissory note, he never returned the money. Therefore, the complainant went back to the office of the SDO, where he was informed that no such allotment letters had been issued by the SDO office. On the basis of this complaint, a formal FIR, FIR No.40/2009 was chalked out at Police Station, Khajuwala for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406 IPC.

3. Meanwhile, Prabhu Das also lodged a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khajuwala, which was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered another FIR, FIR No.7/2010, for offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. According to the complaint, while Mr.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document