Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, and has upheld the order dated 2.5.2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Ram Baksh, and the petitioner No.1, Nathu Lal, are related to each-other: Ram Baksh is Nathu Lal's uncle. Both of them own agricultural land situated in Village Ghegha, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. The complainant, Ram Baksh, lodged a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur wherein he claimed that he was the owner of the agricultural land located in different khasra numbers situated in his village. He further claimed that he has never sold his land to Nathu Lal. However, Nathu Lal and the other petitioners, namely Ram Karan, Shiv Shankar and Ram Singh have formed a gang and have tried to deprive him of his land by creating a forged agreement to sell. According to him, he neither sold his land, nor received Rs.15 Lacs, nor handed-over the possession of his land to Nathu Lal. Moreover, in the forged agreement to sell, Ram Karan, Shiv Shankar and Ram Singh have signed as witness. According to him, Nathu Lal, his nephew, had asked him to put his thumb impression on blank stamp papers as the same were required for getting an electricity connection for his tube-well. However, subsequently, Nathu Lal and others have misused the stamp papers for forging the agreement to sell. The said complaint was sent to the Police Station Bagru where a formal FIR, namely FIR No.405/03 was registered for the offences aforementioned, and the investigation commenced.

3. But subsequently, Nathu Lal also filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District wherein he claimed that Ram Baksh had sold his land to him for a consideration of Rs.14,50,000/-. For this purpose, both of them had entered into an agreement to sell on stamp paper of Rs.100/-. However, subsequently, he had sold his land to a large number of persons. The said complaint was sent to the Police Station Bagru where a formal FIR, namely FIR No.311/04 was chalked out for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

4. Nathu Lal also filed a civil suit against Ram Baksh for specific performance of contract and for cancellation of the sale deed created by Ram Baksh in favour of other buyers of the land.

5. While the police has submitted a negative Final Report in the FIR lodged by Nathu Lal, eventually, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioners in the FIR lodged by Ram Baksh. By order dated 2.5.2009, the learned Magistrate framed charged against the petitioners, as aforementioned. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2009, they filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. But by order dated 30.1.2013, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and upheld the charge order dated 2.5.2009. Hence, this petition before this court.

6. Mr. S.C. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions before this court:-

Firstly, according to Section 240 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is permitted to frame a charge if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and if he is of the opinion that the accused could adequately be punished by him. However, in the present case, there is insufficient ground to presume that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them. Moreover, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document