The court upheld that proceedings for theft of public property lack merit without credible evidence linking the accused to the crime, affirming the judicial role in preventing wrongful prosecutions.

Order :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 08.08.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Dausa (hereinafter referred as ‘learned Revisional Court’ for brevity) in Criminal Revision No.37/2020 whereby, the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 25.03.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa whereby, the learned trial Court accepted the protest petition filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 and took cognizance against the petitioner for offencepunishable under Section 379 of IPC .

2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was submitted by the respondent No.2 alleging therein that the petitioner cut the Neem tree from its root and took away the said tree which was planted by his father outside their house. On the said complaint, FIR No.440/2017 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC . After a thorough investigation, the police filed a negative final report. Subsequently, a protest petition was filed by the complainant against the said report and vide order dated 25.03.2019, the said protest petition was accepted by the learned Trial Magistrate and cognizance was taken against the petitioner for offence under of . The order of cognizance was assailed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court, which was dismissed. Hence this Criminal Misc. Petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, at the initial stage, no case was made out against the petitioner by the Investigating Agency, therefore, a negative final report was proposed in the matter and same was accepted by the learned Trial Magistrate. Counsel submits that the order of acceptance of negative final report was assailed by the complainant before the learned Revisional Court in Revision Petition No. 125/2017 and vide order dated 17.11.2017, the said revision was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Magistrate for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, complainant and other witnesses were examined by the trial Court and vide order dated 09.05.2018, protest petition filed by complainant was dismissed. Subsequently, complainant preferred another Revision Petition No.58/2018 and vide order dated 06.06.2018, learned Revisional Court set aside the order of the Trial Magistrate dated 09.05.2018 with the direction to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after considering the material available on record. Counsel submits that in continuation of the directions issued by the learned Revisional Court, learned Trial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 25.03.2019 took cognizance against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC . Counsel submits that the said impugned order of cognizance was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 08.08.2022.

4. Counsel submits that the learned courts below have committed serious error of facts and law in initiating the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Counsel submits that it is apparent from the record that the FIR was lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 against the petitioner on the basis of information provided to him by his neighbours with regard to the theft of Neem tree. Counsel submits that in the FIR, the names of neighbours, who disclosed the name of the petitioner to the complainant in respect of theft of Neem tr