[Citation : 2010(1) RLW 75 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Rajnikant Agrawal Vs. Gopali Devi Meena & Ors. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Rajnikant Agrawal
Versus
Gopali Devi Meena & Ors.
S.B. Criminal Revision Petitioner No. 106 of 2009, decided on 18.3.2009
Revision dismissed.
na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 145] 146 & ,sls ekeys esa izfØ;k tgk¡ Hkwfe lEcU/kh fookn esa kkfUr Hkax gksus dh laHkkouk gks & Hkw[k.Mksa ij vfrØe.k fd;k & na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 145 ds rgr ifjokn nk;j fd;k & mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ¼eftLVªsV½ us Hkw[k.M dqdZ djus dk vknsk ikfjr djrs gq, rglhynkj dks izkid ds :i esa fu;qä fd;k & vizkFkhZ us iqujh{k.k nk;j dh & vfrfjä ftyk ,oa lSku U;k;k/khk us vknsk vfHk[kf.Mr dj iqujh{k.k Lohdkj dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & mi[k.M eftLVªsV us na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 145¼1½ ds izko/kkuksa dh vuqikyuk fd;s fcuk vknsk vknsk ikfjr fd;k & na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 145¼1½ ds rgr dksbZ vknsk ikfjr fd;k fcuk mi[k.M eftLVªsV@eftLVªsV na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 145¼4½ ds rgr vknsk ikfjr ugha dj ldrk vr%lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh vfHk[kf.Mr djuk mfpr FkkA ¼in la- 10 ls 13½ iqujh{k.k [kkfjt dhA
2. Brief facts of the case are that on October 21, 2008, the petitioner lodged an FIR at Police Station Jawahar Circle Jaipur, which was registered as FIR No. 115 of 2008 against the non-petitioners 1 and 2. The SHO Police Station Jawahar Circle sought information from the Jaipur Development Authority regarding title of the plots in question for which FIR was filed. The Dy. Commissioner of Zone IV in the JDA vide his letter dated November 7, 2008 informed that the plots No. 80, 81 and 82 are in the names of Shri Dharmendra Gupta, Vikas Khetan and Sanjay Agrawal. Brother of non-petitioner No. 2,Badri Prasad, was an MLA and therefore under his influence the non-petitioners 1and 2 tried to encroach upon the plots of the petitioner and they damaged the boundary wall of the plots. The non-petitioners 1 and 2 are running a School nearby the plots of the petitioner and they tried to assault the petitioner on November 12, 2008. The matter was reported to the SHO Police Station Jawahar Circle. Thereafter the SHO PS Jawahar Circle filed a complaint under Section 145 Cr.P.C. On December 15, 2008 and reported the matter to the ADM II Jaipur City, Jaipur stating therein that party No. 1 i.e. the petitioner lodged FIR No. 115 of 2008 under Section 448 IPC on October 21, 2008 stating therein that they are the plot owners of plots No. 80, 81 and 82. When the petitioner went to their plots, he came to know that Sri Badri Prasad Meena, non-petitioner No. 2 and his wife Gopali Devi Meena non-petitioner No. 1 have written the names of their School on the boundary wall of the plots of the petitioner. When the petitioner tried to stop them from writing the name of the school on the boundary wall, the threatened to murder the petitioner. It was reported that Shri Badri Prasad Meena and Smt. Gopali Devi Meena have damaged the boundary wall of these plots and hence, there is a strong apprehension of breach of peace, therefore proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. be initiated and a Receiver be appointed on the plots in question. Since there was a strong apprehension of breach of peace and on the basis of the complaint filed by the SHO, the ADM passed an order on December 16, 2008 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the plots in question have been attached and the Tehsildar Sanganer was appointed as Receiver on the plots No. 80, 81 and 82. Since again there was a strong apprehension that the Non-petitioners 1 and 2 will again encroach upon the plots, the petitioner prayed that fencing be done on the plots for the security of the plots. The SDM vide order dated December 31, 2008 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and it was ordered that the Tehsildar Sanganer will do the fencing on the plots at the expenditure of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order dated December 16, 2008, the non-petitioners 1 and 2 filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge Jaipur City Jaipur which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated January 21, 2009 allowed the revision petition filed by the non-petitioners and quashed the order of the SDM dated December 16, 2008 appointing receiver. Aggrieved against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, allowing the revision petition of the non-petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
3. Mr. S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted following submissions:
(a) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the title holder
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.