JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore humbly and most respectfully prayed that by appropriate order or directions, this criminal revision petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and the Hon’ble Court call for the entire record concerning the case and after examining the same, by issuing order or direction in the nature thereof:-

(A) The impugned judgment dated 11.8.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Bikaner in criminal case No. 176/2003 (State Vs. Shiv Prakash & Ors.), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(B) The impugned judgment dated 27.07.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bikaner in criminal Appeal No. 69/2011 (State Vs. Shiv Prakash & Ors.), may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(C) The findings arrived by the learned trial court for the purpose of acquittal of accused respondents no. 2 to 7 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(D) Alternatively the matter may kindly be remanded back to learned trial court to record the fresh finding while considering the material available on record.

(E) Alternatively the matter may kindly be remanded back with the direction to take on record the altered/changed map of site plan/housing scheme and take further evidence on record.”

3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Pradeep Choudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that the complainant–petitioner lodged an F.I.R., bearing F.I.R. No. 217/1995 against the respondents no. 2 to 7, i.e. the private respondents, under sections 420 and 467 IPC; wherein it was stated that the respondents 2 to 7 sold a plot of land, under a housing scheme, adjacent to the west wall of Sophia School, Jaipur Road, Bikaner, in lieu of Rs. 40,000/-on 27.12.1995 vide notarized sale agreements, and that despite the same, the private respondents did not accede to the petitioner’s request to register the plot in question, and subsequently, changed the site plan/map of the said plot, changed the name of the housing scheme and demanded more compensation for the same. And that, the wife of the petitioner’s brother (Murari Punia) had also purchased a plot of land from the private respondents.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner, the charge-sheet was filed against the private respondents, and the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial after framing of charges. And that, during the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 5 documents, namely the Ex. P1-Report, Ex. P2-Sale Agreement, Ex.P3-Blue Print (Map of Housing Scheme), Ex.P4-Copy of Registry of Shatish (P.W. 2), Ex.P5-Sale Agreement of Murari Punia. As per learned Senior Counsel, the witnesses of the private respondents were also examined; and that, the learned Court below, on the conclusion of the trial, acquitted the private respondents vide the impugned judgment dated 11.08.2006.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a criminal appeal was preferred by the State against the aforementioned judgment, and that the said appeal was first instituted in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bikaner. The said Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 27.07.2011, while upholding the earlier judgment passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the aforementioned judgments have been passed by the learned Courts below without fully appreciat