[2025:RJ-JP:25922] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 23/2017 Mahendra S/o Late Shri Kundan Lal, R/o Village Malpur, Police Station Ramgarh, Distt. Alwar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Santu Ram S/o Harish Chand R/o Village Malpur, Police Station Ramgarh, Distt. Alwar Raj. 2. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Agarwal for Mr. S.S. Sunda For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/07/2025 1. Service complete. 2. None present for respondent No.1. 3. Aggrieved from order dated 09.11.2016 in criminal revision case No.221/2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar, instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner complainant. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that land in question was purchased by father of petitioner wherein father of Santuram was witness and Santuram was well aware about the fact that the said land belongs to father of Mahendra and despite knowledge he purchased land from Rambabu despite that Rambabu has no authority to sell land to Santuram. He further submitted that on his complaint, FIR was registered at P.S. [2025:RJ-JP:25922] (2 of 4) [CRLR-23/2017] Ramgarh and after protest petition, learned trial court has taken cognizance under Section 420 IPC against Rambabu and Santuram but both of them have preferred revision before the revisional court and revisional court has set aside the order of cognizance on the ground that ingredient under Section 420 IPC is not made out. He further submitted that the order by revisional court is contrary to material on record and revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction while setting aside the order of cognizance passed by learned trial court. 3. None present for respondent to oppose the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner. 4. Considered submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On the basis of complaint filed before the Court, FIR No.188/2011 was registered at P.S. Ramgarh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police has filed closure report (FR) after investigation but on protest petition and after recording statement of complaint himself and Badrinath as witness, the trial court has passed an order of cognizance under Section 420 IPC against Baburam and Santuram. Both Baburam and Santuram have filed revision No.210/2012 and 221/2012 which were decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar on 09.11.2016. The revisional court has allowed both the revisions and set aside the order of cognizance dated 25.02.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, Alwar. 6. Having considered the material as referred by learned counsel for petitioner and also on perusal order of revisional court, it is apparent that revisional court has observed that fraud has [2025:RJ-JP:25922] (3 of 4) [CRLR-23/2017] been committed but ingredient under Section 420 IPC is not available. The revisional court has also considered the fact that the matter pertains to civil nature. After investigation, police has filed closure report only on ground of civil nature. 7. In case of Lalmuni Devi vs State Of Bihar & Ors 2001 (2) SCC 17 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the proposition that the facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amounts to a criminal offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable it does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In case of Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi & Ors. 1996 (7) SCC 440, these issues were considered on previous occasion. Later same were considered in case of M. Krishnan vs Vijay Singh And Anr. 2001 (8) SCC 645 and Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State Of Bihar 2019 (6) SCC 107. 8. The judgment as referred hereinabove clearly indicated that law over the point is settled that in case where ingredient to attract criminal offence is available then a criminal case is maintainable despite the fact that the cause of action to file a civil suit is also available to the complainant therefore civil case and criminal cases, are different domains and in case a fraud has been committed and it constitutes an offence and revisional court was of the view that fraud has been committed then only on ground that the nature of offence is a civil nature it cannot set aside the cognizance order. The order passed by learned revisional court is contrary to settled proposition of law and liable to be set aside. 9. In view of discussion made hereinabove instant revision petition is hereby allowed and order dated 09.11.2016 in revision [2025:RJ-JP:25922] (4 of 4) [CRLR-23/2017] No.221/2012 is set aside. As a result, impugned order dated 25.02.2012 in criminal case No.27/268/11 is hereby restored qua Santuram. The trial court is directed to try Santuram in accordance with law. 10. The parties are directed to appear before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh on 18.08.2025. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /107