Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24/5/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sangod, District Kota in Cr. Case No. 309/2009, where charges have been framed against the accused petitioner, Manju Agarwal for the offence under Section 420 and in alternative under Section 420 /120 -B IPC and accused, Girraj Gautam for the offence under Sections 420 /120 -B and 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The contention of the present petitioners is that it is a matter relates to the dispute of the land, which belongs to Bhagwan Sahai. The dispute is in relation to Khasra No. 249. Bhagwan Sahai is the Khatedar since 1984 and this land was allotted to him in 1978. In 2009, on the report of the Patwari, the name of Bhagwan Sahai has entered as Khatedar. On 15/6/2009, Bhagwan Sahai sold this land to present petitioner, Manju Agarwal along with Khasra Nos. 250 and 251 by registered sale deed and thereafter on 24/6/2009 further this land has been sold to Girraj Gautam through registered sale deed. In the year 1982, the land of Khasra Nos. 103 and 106 were allotted to Krishi Vipanan Board, but due to some mistake, they raised construction on Khasra No. 249. In this backdrop, the FIR has been lodged by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mandita, Panchayat Samiti, Sangod, District Kota on 17/7/2009 stating therein that the Panchayat is having ownership and possession over the land of Khasra Nos. 256 and 259 and the present petitioners have trespassed the land and also damaged the construction over the property. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the present petitioners have been charged for the above offences.
(2.) THE other contention of the present petitioners is that admittedly, land of Khasra No. 249 belongs to Bhagwan Sahai in revenue record. It has been entered in his name and by registered sale deed, present petitioners have purchased the land. They are bonafide purchasers of the land. If the prosecution case taken on its face value, no offence has been committed by the present petitioners. In fact, Bhagwan Sahai has deceived the present petitioners as he has not disclosed the fact that on land of Khasra No. 249, constructions have been raised by Krisi Upaj Mandi Samiti and further his contention is that Krisi Upaj Mandi Samiti has raised the construction illegally on Khasra No. 249, which is land of the ownership of the Bhagwan Sahai and to save his skin, this false fir has been lodged. Land is in possession of the Bhagwan Sahai and present petitioners are the bonafide purchasers, hence, no offence can be made against the present petitioners. Per contra, the contention of counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor is that admittedly, the land of Khasra No. 249 was in possession of the Gram Panchayat and the present petitioners have damaged the construction and trespasses over the land in deceitful manner.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the photocopy of the record of the case.;