The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited to cases with clear jurisdictional errors or abuse of process, which were not present in this case.

ORDER :

Sudesh Bansal, J. - Petitioner-complainant has filed instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, dismissing his criminal revision petition No.02/2022 and affirming the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby and whereunder while dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the negative final report in FIR No.17/2019 registered for offence under Sections 420, 406 and 447 IPC has been accepted with observations that the dispute sought to be raised in the FIR is purely of civil nature.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

3. It appears from the record that the petitioner-complainant claimed to have purchased three shops through an agreement to sell dated 07.12.1987 for a consideration Rs. 13,000/- from one Shravan Kumar Kumawat. Indisputably, on the same date, power of attorney in respect of three shops was executed in favour of Hari Narayan Sharma (Non-petitioner No.2 who happens to be brother in law of petitioner). Petitioner made a criminal complaint that Non-petitioner No.2, as a power of attorney holder, executed sale deed in favour of his wife in the year 2018, whereas, his power of attorney has come to an end in the year 2013, after death of Shravan Kumar Kumawat. During investigation, it revealed that wife of non-petitioner No.2 is sister of petitioner and non-petitioner No.2 wanted to purchase the property in the name of his wife, but because of non-availability of required identity documents, the agreement to sale was got entered into, in the name of petitioner, who is brother of non-petitioner No.2-wife. According to non-petitioner No.2, he sold shops in questions in favour of his wife in the year 1989 itself, and possession of the property is lying with him since 1987 onwards. In this criminal complaint, petitioner claimed himself to be bona fide purchaser of land of three shops, though does not dispute the possession to be with non-petition No.2.

4. After investigation, the Police found that the actual purchaser of these shops was Hari Narayan Sharma, however the agreement was made in favour of petitioner only ostentatiously since he happens to be person of confidence, brother of his wife. Later on, Hari Narayan Sharma during life time of Shravan Kumar Kumawat has executed document of sale in favour of his wife in the year 1989. It was also noticed that these facts were well knowledge of the petitioner since inception, accordingly, no criminal act of cheating or misappropriation of property on part of non-petitioner No.2 is made out. Thus, final negative report was submitted before the concerned Magistrate.

5. After submission of final report by the Police, the petitioner preferred protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate. The concerned Judicial Magistrate considered the protest petition, recorded statements of the complainant, and vide order dated 23.12.2021 dismissed the same observing that the dispute is purely of civil nature and accepted the final report.

6. Petitioner challenged the order dated 23.12.2021 by way of the criminal revision petition. The criminal revision came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II vide order dated 21.03.2022. The revisional Court has clearly observed that; firstly, on the basis of alleged agreement to sell, no right, title and interest accrued in favour of petitioner;

secondly, the petitioner never took any steps to ensure registry of sale deed on the basis of such agreement to sell;

thirdly, possession of shops in question is with Hari Narayan Sharma and he has executed the document sale deed, which is well within the knowledge of the petitioner; and that the dispute is purely of civil natur