The court affirmed that sufficient prima facie evidence can justify the framing of charges under IPC provisions related to fraud and misrepresentation.

ORDER

1. The petitioners Smt. Kamla Devi and Devendra Singh have filed the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Revision Petition No.146/2019 (CIS No.1601/2019), whereby, learned revisional court while partly allowing the revision petition discharged the accused petitioners from the charges framed against them for the offences under Sections 467 & 468 IPC and maintained the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Case No.369/2016, whereby, charges have been framed against the accused-petitioners for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 471 & 120-B IPC.

2. It is submitted in the misc. petition that the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate framing charge against the petitioners and the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned revisional court to the extent of upholding the order of framing charge are ex facie illegal and has been passed without considering the facts of the case. It is submitted that the complainant is not having any locus standi as he is not a person aggrieved in the present case. It is submitted that by lodging FIR the complainant tried to give criminal colour to a civil dispute as the complainant has failed to get any relief in the civil suit or application for temporary injunction.

3. It is further submitted in the petition that though on the FIRs, which came to be registered at the instance of Smt. Kamla Devi Rajendra Pareek, the police has submitted negative final report holding it to be a civil dispute but on the contrary the investigating agency, in the present FIR No.872/2012, has submitted charge-sheet, whereas, prima facie it is a civil dispute.

4. A revision petition under Section 397(401) Cr.P.C. has also been filed by petitioner Dinesh Yadav (complainant in Criminal Misc. Case No. 369/2016) against the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned revisional court so far as it relates to discharge of accused-petitioners from the charges framed against them under Sections 467 & 468 IPC.

5. It is submitted in the revision petition that the learned revisional court has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the investigating agency after thorough investigation has filed the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners and the learned Magistrate has rightly framed the charges against the accusedpetitioners.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties present in person before the Court and perused the material available on record.

7. The revisional court in para 11 and 12 of its order has categorically discussed the relevant statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and concluded that the present petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi sold the alleged plot to Rajendra Pareek exhibiting her title and possession over the alleged plot, whereas, the title of the said land stands in the name of Fateh Singh Shantilal & Kalyan Singh and complainant Dinesh Yadav is having old possession over it.

8. Further Smt. Kamla Devi and Davendra Singh sold the disputed land to different persons, knowing the fact that they are not the lawful owner of the said land.

9. The revisional court also opined that petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi though belongs to the Yadav community, misrepresented herself in the Rajput community, and executed the sale deed in the favour of Rajendra Pareek. The said court also noticed that the Revenue Record was also interpolated for executing the sale deeds and petitioners used those interpolated documents, showing themselves as the real owner. Learned revisional court after minutely analyzing the material available on the record opined that prima facie there is enough material against the present petitioners to frame the charges under Sections 419, 420, 471 and 120-B IPC.

10. The learned revisional court also expressly jotted d