- (1.) The petitioner, Chandrabhanu, is aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Chandrabhanu, and the respondent No.2, Rajesh Singhal, were friends. Rajesh Singhal decided to sell off a house to the appellant that belonged to him. He informed the appellant that the house is not subjected to any mortgage with any bank or any financial institution. Despite the fact that Chandrabhanu had paid part of the consideration amount to Rajesh Singhal, the final sale-deed was never registered by him. Subsequently, Chandrabhanu learnt that in fact the house was mortgaged to a particular bank. When he tried to contact Rajesh Singhal, Rajesh Singhal would not respond to his pleas. Therefore, Chandrabhanu lodged a criminal case against Rajesh Singhal. However, after a thorough investigation, the police filed a negative Final Report. Consequently, Chandrabhanu submitted a protest petition before the learned trial court.
(3.) While the protest petition was under consideration, the police sought the permission of the Court for further investigating the case. Subsequently, the police submitted a chargesheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 420 IPC against Rajesh Singhal. Vide order dated 24.08.2009, the learned trial Court, not only took cognizance against Rajesh Singhal for offence under Section 420 IPC, but also directed that proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. should commence against him. Respondent No.2 challenged the order dated 24.08.2009 before the learned Judge. Vide order dated 25.06.2011, while permitting the complainant to be impleaded as a party, after hearing both the Public Prosecutor and the complainant, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by Rajesh Singhal and upheld the cognizance order dated 24.08.2009.;