1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

Jugal Kishore Sharma (Shukla) & Ors.

Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

(S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.592/2009)

Date of Order :-

06^th October, 2009

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN

Mr.Anurga Sharma, for the petitioners.

Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor.

Mr.M.K. Jain, for the complainant.

The petitioners have challenged the order dated

20.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sawai

Madhopur whereby the learned Judge has directed the police to

further investigate in FIR No.258/2007 under the Provisions of

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1

had taken a shop namely Ankur Medical & General Store on rent

from the respondent No.2, for which respondent No.2 had taken an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner No.1 as security (Pagdi)

which was agreed to be refunded upon vacating the shop. A rent

agreement was also executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- witnessed

by the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and attested by a Notary Public on

08.03.2001. But only after some time, the respondent No.2 started

pressurizing the petitioner No.1 to vacate the rented shop. In this

regard, the respondent No.2, served a legal notice upon the

petitioner No.1 in March, 2004; the petitioner No.1 replied and

denied the contents thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was

2

served with a legal notice followed by a notice of a civil suit filed by

the respondent No.2 for eviction from the rented shop. The petitioner

No.1 came to know that the respondent No.2 had forged an

agreement on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- with regard to the rented

shop, wherein the clause with regard to the advance amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- was not mentioned. Therefore, he submitted a

complaint against the respondent No.2 before the ACJM, Sawai

Madhopur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, & 120B

IPC. The said complaint was sent to the police under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2007. After investigation, the police filed a negative

final report. Against the final report, the petitioner No.1 filed a

protest application before the ACJM, Sawai Madhopur. He examined

himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 19.04.2008, the

learned Magistrate dismissed the protest application and allowed the

final report. Against the order dated 19.04.2008, a revision petition

was preferred, which was dismissed on 17.06.2008.

The respondent No.2 also preferred a complaint against

the petitioners that they had forged a rent agreement on a stamp

paper of Rs.100/-.The complaint was sent to Police Station Mantown

u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No.258/2007 was registered for

offences u/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC on 04.06.2007. However, the

Police submitted a final report that the dispute between the parties

was of civil nature, which could be decided by a Civil Court. The

respondent No.2 neither submitted any protest application, nor

examined himself before the learned ACJM, Sawai Madhopur.

However, on 03.11.2007, the learned Magistrate disallowed the final

report and took cognizance against the petitioners u/s 420, 467, 468,

3

471 & 120B IPC. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the

order dated 03.11.2007 before the Additional Session Judge, Sawai

Madhopur, which was allowed vide order dated 17.06.2008. The

respondent No.2 preferred a criminal revision petition against the

order dated 17.06.2008 before this Court. Vide order dated

05.01.2009, this Court allowed the revision petition and while

quashing the order dated 17.06.2008 directed the revisional court to

re-hear the parties and pass a fresh order after taking into

consideration all the grounds raised in the revision petition. Vide

order dated 20.03.2009, the learned reivsional court while set