v V J EEGE‘ CGEERT C5F bkii’ia' Criminai M. A??LECAE’§T ‘ Ab E1111 Khan - ” The. State of Chhatiisgarh Order 130$: for a 0%—’2007 l I g i \i K Sdl- ‘ DEDBENDRA WSHBA ‘ Judge ‘ (iriminai REF. Ea. 21G ai" 266% Am-"mtmm‘r Abfiui Khall Sio ‘T‘ah'm Khan aced aboui Q1 vpora > DI “i ., R9¢npH ‘utauon Ammxapmy Ulstt. burguja (Lb) Vk. m$yvmuwNT '“11 mam 01 LgnaIUSgaln unougl P iica Qfahgp Amh’llaahnr T‘hafr‘lr‘f Cun‘o‘nja (Q: 1‘} mr pnhnp rm; m NumAr ... by. $5? EEGEI Dlé bili‘l dusEi9€ URIIX'EIIQI’B. N115£lra, d. $1111 Manoi Pal‘anipe CounSe1 for the applicant Qkwq r‘ L7 Da-m‘nn‘l h Arlvnnnia r‘ vwo n1 {-‘A’n Hm Q+n+g Lu; \J 1.x LmLlwaA, u‘ nuvuLcLuu \JbLn/Lm LUL Luv xJLcLul UKEE& tan—5 9“,. Tue pétitioner by the instant. petition under Section 482 of CrPC hag prayed for setting aside the order dated 3G 200i passed by the I“ Additionai Sessions Judge, Sarguia, A111D1Kapur in Criminai Revision No zo/JUU/ and arsenal gmo mm :rom the charges framed against him. The Chief Judieiai Maglstrate, Ambikapur Surguia Vide order dated 8—1~200'7 passed 1n Craninai Case No. 3128/2005 has framed Charge under Section 420, 468, 4'71 and 120B of LRC. The petitioner preierred a Crilninai revision against the above order on the ground that there is no oral or documentary“ evidence avaiiabie on record and prayed fOr discharging him from the above Charges, however the above revision has been dismissed bv the llnpUEDECl Ol‘Ci61‘. 2. Learned counsei fo‘ the petitioner submits that if the material avaiiable on record is accepted in its entiretV as correct and true, in that case also, case for commission of offence punishabie under Sections 4’20, 468, 4‘7 i and 120B of LP‘C. is not. made out He submitted that on the basis of enqmry report of the petitioner dated 17-9—2004, under vaiuation of the gift deed by main accused Ramesh Agrawai resulting in huge monetary toss to the State Government came to the fore, however, the investigating Cfficer with a nialafide intention of saving main accused, has arraved the petitioner as accused 1n1 U m ” @ ,V 3 instead of making him main prosecution Witness. 1t ls aygued that impasitian of penalty on the basis of valuauon 01 gut dead and evasion of stamp duty bV the Coi‘iector 01 stamp, Surguja waS Challenged bV Saurabh Agrawai in tne boarci OI Revenue where the Beard of Revenue bv the order dated 25m May, zutw has allowea‘t the appea‘t and set aside the order dated 5—5—20Ub passed by the Coiiector of Stamp which has attained misdity. Re‘iiance i5 placed on Smite of Earvana and others -v~ Ch“ Ehaian lad and othere reported in AER 1§9z SC mm and Sitendra Kumm: Jain —v~ State of heihi and othera renorted in ii§§$38 SOC 77!}, 3 On the other hand. ieax‘ned counsei for the State Submitted that the petitioner in conspiracy 7ith the main accused Ramesh Agrawai provided him the Maintenance hnasra of the iand wherein it was mentioned that the property in question is situated at hniipara Whereas according to the original Maintenance Khasra, the property in question is situated in Devigani. Valuation of the property was made considering the same to be residential though as per guidennes of the Coiiector, vaiuation of the same ought to have been made taking the same to be a commercial piot and accordingly stainp dutv ought to have been iixed and thereby substantial loss oi revenue was caused to the State. The Mamtenanee hnasra annexed with the ’Y if? dam! ,7.1s signed bv the petitioner and the i same is in variance with the entrv in the Maintenance Register. 4. i have heard learned counsel tor the parties. CJI Learned trial Court after going through the documents available on record has prima facie arrived at a conciusion that the above offences are made out against the petitioner. Learned Additionai Sessions Judge bv the impugned order taxing into consideration that the copv of Maintenance Khasra attached with the gift deed which was produced at the time of registration was given hv the petitioner under his own signature has prima facie inferred that the petitioner and the Dy. Registrar With an intention to benefit Ramesh Agrawai so that he is not required W to pay $ta11113 duty payabie for traJlSfer 0f commerciai Diot aS Der guldeimes of th€ Coliecior has h€1d that there is prima facie emdence avallable ill T116 Charge sheet on the basis of which Charges uncmr Section 420, 468, 4'71 and IQGB of LRC. is 13111118. IaC1€ 1118116 out. m the matter 01' State ai’ Harvana wv- Ch Ehaim iai , the Hom’h‘ie Supreme Court has heid that :- “m me fouawmq categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art. 2‘26 of the Conetitution of mam or uneier S 4'82 of Cr‘P‘Ci may inteifere in proceea‘mgs reiatzng to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of me process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends 0] justtce. However, eower shouia' be exercised spaiingiy CiRd that ZOO {7‘1 the TareS‘i 0f Tare CEIS€S. 1; Where the aZZeqations macie in the First Irlfomla'tion Report or the compiaint) even if they ate taken at their face vaéue and acceptea m their entirety do not mime facie constitute any ojjenoe or maice out a case against the (ZCC’uS6a'. tz} Where the atteqations in the First Information Report ana other matehats, if any, acoompanytnq‘ the FIR a0 not atsctose a cognizahie offence, justifying an iiwesttgatton ht; poétce Qfjzoers unaer bi jooa‘ ) of the Code except uncier ah oraer of a Magistt‘ate withih the purview of S iool2} of the Caste. 5; Where the uncontroverted atteqatiorw made in the FIR or complaznt ana the evidence cotiected in support of the same do not azsctose the commission of any offence arid matte out a case against the accused. 4} Where; the atteqations in the FIR. do not constttute a oogmeable ojjence but constitute ontju a non-cognizabie offence, ho investigation is permitted by a poiice officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 13:3(2) of the Code. b] Where the aiieqat'z‘ons marie in the FIR or comzaiaint are so ab3urd ana‘ inherentiy improbabie on the busts of wmcn no pmcient‘ person can ever reach ajust' conciusion that there is suffwient ground for proceedinc; aqainst the aCCLtSeCi, b} Where there 1's an express ieqai ear engrafted in any oj me provisions of the Code or the concerned Act {under wmeh a criminai proceeding is instituted} to the institution and continuance of the prooeediizgs and/oz“ where there is a epecmc provision in the Cocie or the concerned' Act. proviamg eh‘icacious redress for the grievance of the aqgrievea‘ party, ‘/j Where a criminai oroceeding is manifestiu attencied with mam riae and/or where the proceeding is maiiciousiu instituted with an utterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ” The Supreme Court has fm‘ther heid that :— “Wnere aiieqations in the compiaint did constitute a cogmzabie offence fustifuina registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not faZi in any of the categories of cases enumerated above: caiiinq for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers quashinq ofF1T< was not iustified. ” ‘i. 111 the instant case, the Courts beiow considering the oocumentary evidence — Maintenance Khasra admittediv suppned by the petitioner - availabie in the Charge sheet have recorded a prima facie satisfaction that. the ingredients of the above onence are avaiiahie and accordingiy framed charges. The case in hand (toes not fali within the categories mentioned in the above judgment and therefore, ratio of the above law is not applicable in the present case. 8. in the matter of Jitendra Kumar Jain (supra), considenng the fact. of that case that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was rejected Di the High Court on the ground {hat the r€vi3i0n agajn‘st. the impugnec‘i order was already rejected by the Fiessione Judge and revision WaS filed in the garb of petition under Section 482 of CLEO which ie barred undier Sectiom 59mg} of the Code, the Halfb‘ie Supreme Court. Set aside the oyder of the High Court 311d remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. However, in rhe insralrz case, after going rhrough the record) ibis Court is of the opinion that the Additiona‘i Sessione Judge by the impugned order hag righdy rejected foe criminal revieion with the fmding that. the flaming oi” charge is based on doeuinenrary evidence 9. So far as the report of the petitioner wherein he has Bribrnitred that. Maintenance Khasra W‘as in tact fabricated by others; by eraeing the iooation of property given by the petitioner arid subgtituting the eame with imiipara’ and the other ground availabie on record. that the Board of Revenue has set aeide the order of Coiiector of Stamps by which penalty was imposed on the basis of under valuation, is concerned, the same is matter of defence and that can he raised at. appropriate stage b’v the petitioner and the same cannot be considered at this stage in a petition under 10. in the resuit, the petition being devoid of substanceis 1iab1e to he dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. ‘ ; y DHMNDRA Sd/- MISHRA : i Judge Section 482 of CrfiC.