1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R NATTHA SINGH & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.401/2010 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.30/2009. ............... Date of Judgment: 13th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.Rakesh Matoria for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Rawal , Public Prosecutor. Mr.Dron Kaushik for respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: The instant revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners Nattha Singh & others against the order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No.30/2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge 2 has quashed and set aside the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria whereby the learned Magistrate accepted the F.R. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent No.2, Jaspreet Kaur, filed a complaint before the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria against the petitioners alleging therein that the grand father of the complainant was having 122 bighas of ancestral agricultural land at Chak No.16 A.M.P. and the father of the complainant expired on 27.03.1990 and the complainant , her sister Gurpreet Kaur and mother Gurvir Kaur have joint 1/3 share in the said ancestral agricultural land but the accused petitioners deprive the complainant , her sister and mother from their 1/3rd share . Hence they filed revenue suit No.125/1995 before the Asstt. Collector, Sangaria and as per the order of the said suit the share of the complainant, her sister and mother has abolished. The accused petitioners by pleading the wrong facts before the revenue court have conspired the criminal breach. In the said suit the accused petitioners have pleaded wrong facts that the 3 agricultural land has been given separately to the heirs of Gupal Singh and as such the complainant, her sister and mother have not been impleaded as party to the suit. On the basis of this complaint, police lodged FIR No.264/2008 for the offence under section 420 and 120-B IPC and started investigation. The police after investigation submitted the F.R. before the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria who accepted the F.R. Vide order dated 26.05.2009. Against this order, the complainant respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangaria , District Hanumangarh. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangaria vide order dated 27.05.2010 , quashed and set aside the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria and directed the SHO, Police Station, Sangaria to re- investigate the matter and submit the report to the learned trial court . Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order , the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that 4 the order passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sangaria dated 27.05.2010 requires to be set aside only on the ground that the revisional court was not competent to direct the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sangaria to re-investigate the matter and more over , the revisional court could direct the Station House Officer, to further investigate the matter under section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in Kishan Lal vs. Dharmendra Bafna [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 611] in support of the above argument. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, while arguing the matter, stated that the revision petition has rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the charge sheet has been filed in the competent court by the Investigating Officer after the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not contradict this statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, but he argued that prima facie the order of the revisional court being without jurisdiction, can be set aside at this stage and he will 5 re-agitate the matter before the trial court regarding filing of the charge sheet. The impugned order has culminated into its consequence in the shape of a positive report under section 173 Cr.P.C., upon which the trial court has already taken the cognizance also. Therefore, the revision petition has become infructuous and while giving opportunity to the accused petitioner to challenge the legality of the subsequent investigation before the trial court, the revision petition is hereby disposed of accordingly at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george