IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

SMT. LALITA DEVI VS. JITENDER AND OTHERS

S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1022 of 2002 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated August 8,2002 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Behror in Criminal Case No. 24 of 2002 whereby the accused respondents were discharged for the offence under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.

Date of Order : January 22, 2009

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr. R.K. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.Naveen Sharma and Mr. Nawab Ali for the respondents. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for the State.

BY THE COURT :

This revision petition has been

filed by the complainant petitioner Smt.

Lalita Devi against the order dated August 8,

2002 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.

1 Behror in Criminal Case No. 24 of 2002

whereby the accused respondents were discharged for the offence under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Hence this revision petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the accused respondents in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Behror for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that accused respondents after the death of her husband prepared a forged will with intention to give benefit to Jitendera accused No.1 in the complaint. The Court forwarded the complaint to the concerned Police Station and after completion of due process, the ACJM took cognizance against accused Om Prakash and Jitendra for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. After arrest the

accused respondents Jitendra and Om Prakash were released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. by the order dated April 1, 2002 of Addl. Sessions Judge Behror. The ACJM released the accused respondents Om Prakash and Jitendra on bail on April 2, 2002 and thereafter the matter was posted for precharge evidence on April 8, 2002. After recording evidence of witnesses, the accused respodnents produced 8 documents in their favour. The trial court fixed the matter for July 31, 2002 for framing charge. The matter was adjourned on July 31, 2002 and the matter was kept on August 8, 2002. The ACJM after a detailed order dated August 8, 2002 discharged the accused respondents Om Prakash and Jitendra. Hence this revision petition.

3. Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for

the complainant contended that the trial court has not considered the question of law which he has raised before this court through this revision petition. According to him the trial court has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC on Feb. 26, 2002. After taking cognizance the accused were summoned and they appeared before the trial court. On behalf of the complainant precharge evidence was produced and the complainant Lalita was examiend as ADW.1, Prabhu Singh as ADW2 and Man Singh was exanmuebd as ADW.3. The complainant also produced will and the trial court was required to send the documents for report by the FSL and obtained its opnion whether the signatures on will are genuine or forged. The trial court is

not having such an expertise to compare the signatures. In such circumstnaces the findings given by the trial court is beyond jurisdiction.

5. On the other hand Mr. Naveen Kumar Sharma appearing on behalf of the accused respondents contended that the petitioner was already knowing regarding the will and she is residing with his brother in law and the matter is already pending before the revenue courts.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned trial court has not considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the complainant and has also not sent the "will" produced by the accused respondents to the FSL for comparing

signatures.

7. For these reasons, I set aside the order dated August 8, 2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Behror, but at the same time I direct the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to rehear the matter after summoning both the parties and decide the same within 15 days from the date of receipt o..f certified copy of this order and proceed in accordance with law.

8. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.

OPPareek/