[2025:RJ-JP:22886] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 990/2021 1. Ratanlal Nayak Son Of Gulabchand Nayak, Resident Of 92, Shivaji Chowk, Bharampuri, Police Station Bharampuri, Jaipur 2. Dhanraj Nayak Son Of Gulabchand Nayak, Resident Of 14/239, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Police Station Mansarovar District Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Chiranjilal Bairwa Son Of Late Choutha Bairwa, Resident Of Paldi Parsa, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 3. Ramesh Chand Son Of Late Chouthu Bairwa, Resident Of Paldi Parsa, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 390/2020 1. Anoop Agarwal S/o Prem Narayan Agarwal, R/o Plot No. 88, Shivaji Chowk Brahmpuri Khurra, Jaipur At Present Office Jindal Glass Colonizer And Propertise, Dcm Road, Jaipur Raj. 2. Manish Agarwal S/o Krishan Kumar Agarwal, R/o Plot No. 10, Hira Nagar, D.c.m. Ajmer Road, Jaipur At Present Working At Jindal Glass Colonizer And Properties Dcm Road, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Chiranji Lal Bairwa S/o Late Chouthu Bairwa, R/o Paldi Parsa, Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur. 3. Ramejsh Chand S/o Late Chouthu Bairwa, R/o Paldi Parsa, Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Choudhary with [2025:RJ-JP:22886] (2 of 7) [CRLR-990/2021] Mr. Ram Singh Mr. Hariom Yadav and Mr. Naushad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/05/2025 1. These revision petitions were preferred by appellants- accused aggrieved from order of cognizance dated 08.11.2019 in complaint case No. 44/2019 (CIS No. 14/2017) passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Jaipur whereby cognizance under Sections 420, 120-B, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act was taken against Anoop Agarwal and Manish Agarwal and under Sections 420, 120-B, 341, 323/34 IPC against Ratan Lal and Dhanraj and called through bailable warrant. 2. Learned counsel for appellants while relying upon ground of appeal submitted that a criminal complaint was filed by Chiranji Lal and Ramesh Chand on false grounds and after registration of complaint, the trial court has even not sent the complaint for registration of a criminal case at jurisdictional Police Station rather examined the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that after recording the statement of complainant and four other witnesses, the matter was sent to inquiry by police and after inquiry, police has submitted a negative report. He further submitted that despite a negative police report, learned trial Court has taken cognizance without considering the reasons assigned in negative report. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:22886] (3 of 7) [CRLR-990/2021] admittedly, a civil dispute is pending in a civil court, and during pendency of said civil suit, it is not possible for appellants accused to pressurize the complainant to execute any document. He also submitted that the complainant has alleged that on 12.08.2010, a sale deed was executed by cheating, playing fraud and without payment of any sale consideration. He further referred Sections 58 and 59 of the Registration Act and submitted that as soon as any document is submitted for registration, the Sub-Registrar verified the fact of the payment, and after verification of the payment, as provided under the law record his satisfaction and then only a document is registered once satisfaction is registered. He further submitted that the parties were examined in present of witness to verify execution of document with relevant details. 3. Learned counsel has further submitted that after presentation of any document before Sub-Registrar, a process is prescribed for verification and after following process, the document is registered. He also submitted that the trial court without taking note of circumstances of the case has taken cognizance against the appellants, which is contrary to law of the land. He further Referred the judgment in case of Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattarraya Dulaji Gha Digaonkar and Anr. (1961) 1 SCR 1 and submitted that the trial Court has not considered the report of police and also the provision of law and the process adopted by Sub-Registrar, therefore, the order of cognizance is contrary to the established procedure. He further referred the judgment in case of Daleep Singh Vs. Smt. Magan 1996 CrL.J. 190(Raj.), Manoj Kumar Vs. State and Ors. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 219/2012, order dated [2025:RJ-JP:22886] (4 of 7) [CRLR-990/2021] 09.12.2014) and submitted that the trial Court without an inquiry under section 202 C.P.C. has taken cognizance and same is an abuse of process of law. Learned Counsel has further referred the judgment in case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 363 and submitted that this Hon’ble Court is empowered under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to look at facts of the case along with power to direct further inquiry, if required. He also submitted that the material on record is not sufficient to point out any finger upon any of the appellant, and moreover, the order of cognizance is passed without any material on court. At last, he submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality, therefore same is liable to be set aside. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 5. No one is present on behalf of respondent-complainant despite sufficient service. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record and also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellants. 7. The facts giving rise to these revision petitions are that complainant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a complaint before the court of Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act alleging that on 12.08.2010 accused playing fraud with intention to cheat, has prepared a false and fabricated sale deed on 12.08.2010 and without payment of sale consideration got executed in their favor. When the complainant have visited the office of Anoop to collect the money on 01.9.2010, then they were abused with castiest slur [2025:RJ-JP:22886] (5 of 7) [CRLR-990/2021] and assaulted by accused. Further, it was mentioned that on 12.08.2010, they were called by appellants-accused in the office of Anoop Agarwal and without any payment a sale deed got executed. On basis of this complaint, the trial court has examined both the complainant and AW-3, AW-4 and AW-5, total five witnesses in support of complainant. Thereafter, the complaint was sent under section 202 of Cr.P.C. to Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and a report was submitted on 13.7.2015. The trial court after considering the material on record has taken cognizance against the appellants. 8. We have considered the criminal complaint which was initially filed before learned Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur City Jaipur and later transferred to learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act. We have also considered the statement of all five witnesses, including two complainant recorded on oath by learned Judicial Magistrate. We have also considered the enquiry report under section 202 Cr.P.C. submitted by police. The report of police indicate that both the complainants are brothers and a sale deed was executed on 12.08.2010 in the name of Divya Nayak, daughter of Ratan Lal Nayak. The Police has enquired from several persons, but some of them have refused to record their statement as they do not want to indulge in between complainant and appellants-accused. The report indicate that some of the witnesses have corroborated the story of complainant and police termed, them as interested witnesses. Both the complainant have Corroborated their allegations even in statement recorded by police. The material on record clearly indicate that the complainant has corroborated the allegations in complaint. The [2025:RJ-JP:22886] (6 of 7) [CRLR-990/2021] police has not collected any record in particular accounts book of accused to establish the trail of payment. There is no record to show that the sale consideration was paid to the complainant when a land was registered in the name of Divya Nayak, daughter of Ratan Lal Nayak, then a payment verification is required from the books of account particularly when it is mentioned that complainant Anoop Agarwal is a coloniser and Manish Agarwal is working in the firm, therefore, without considering the accounts- book, it is not possible for police to draw a conclusion in favour of appellants-accused. 9. Learned counsel for appellant has further referred the provisions of Section of 58 and 59 of the Registration Act which provides for endorsement on documents admitted to register. A procedure is prescribed, but still there are lots of litigation alleging non-observance of procedure by Sub-Registrar. The material on record clearly indicate that the payment trail is not proved in the instant case and the appellants-accused are not entitled to get benefit of Sections 58 and 59 of the Registration Act. 10. In case of Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattarraya Dulaji Gha Digaonkar and Anr. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered provision of Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., which empowers the magistrate to hold an enquiry into complaint of offence in order to ascertain whether there is sufficient foundatio for issuance of process. Herein, this case, after considering the statement of five witnesses, the matter was referred to police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and a report of police is available on record, thus an inquiry process was followed by trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:22886] (7 of 7) [CRLR-990/2021] 11. After considering the evidence of five witnesses, including two complainant, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against the appellants-accused and looking to the material on record, there is no perversity or illegality in the order of Cognizance. 12. In case of Raghu Raj Singh Rousha Vs. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Private Limited and Anr. (supra) the High Court is competent to exercise revisional power, but there has to be some material on record to show that order of cognizance is just an abuse of law. Similarly, case of Daleep Singh Vs. Smt. Magan (supra) and followed in Manoj Kumar Vs. State and Ors. is not applicable the Trial Court has already considered and exercise power under section 202 of Cr.P.C, therefore, no case is made out to set aside the impugned order whereby the trial court has taken cognizance against appellants- accused. 13. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the revision petitions Nos. 990/2021 and 390/2020 filed aggrieved from order dated 08.11.2019 are hereby dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. 14. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /124-125