N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) Both these petitions arise out of the Criminal Case No. 100/98 pending in the court of A.C.J.M. (Pollution), Pali.
(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner Mishrilal addressed a complaint to the Director General, Anti Corruption, Jaipur stating inter alia that in the Pali town near Lohia pond, there is temple of Ratneshwar Mahadev in front of Sheetla Mata temple in Adarsh Nagar. The land behind the temple belonged to it. The patta of the land being Case No. 40/36-37 is in the name of Jugraj Pannaraj Pancholi. It is alleged that the accused respondent Gordhan Das fraudulently in conspiracy with the clerk concerned, got a forged patta issued in his favour with a view to grab the land. It is further alleged that the manipulation was done somewhere during the period 1976-80. On this information, a case was registered against one Mohanlal Bhootra, Record Keeper, for the offence u/s. 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was also registered against accused respondents Gordhan Das and Vishnu Kumar for the offence u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. After investigation, the Department of Anti Corruption forwarded the Final Report. However, the local police filed a chargesheet against the accused respondents viz. Gordhan Das and Vishnu Kumar for the offence u/ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 31.3.1998 discharged the accused respondent Gordhan Das of the offence u/ss. 467, 468 IPC and accused respondent Vishnu Kum. However, the learned Magistrate framed the charge against accused Gordhan Das for the offence u/ss. 420 and 471 IPC. The State challenged the order dated 31.3.1998 discharging accused respondents Gordhan Das and Vishnu Kumar by way of filing revision before the Sessions Judge, Pali. The complainant challenged the said order by way of Miscellaneous Petition, which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 529/1998. It appears that Reverting back to the revision petition filed by the State before the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali, the said petition was dismissed by the order dated 26.10.98. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the complainant Mishrilal when the matter was listed before this Court on 28.11.1998 that the order under challenge has already been confirmed in revision by the Court of Sessions Judge. This Court issued notice to the respondents on 26.11.98. On 8.3.1999 the record of the case was called-for. The petition was admitted by this Court on 24.11.2000. Thereafter, an application was filed for treating the Miscellaneous Petition u/s. 482 Cr.RC. as a revision petition u/s. 397 Cr.RC. The Miscellaneous Petition was allowed to be treated as revision petition by this Courts order 6.7.2001. As such, it has been registered as S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/2002. In view of the order of the Sessions Judge dated 26.10.98, the complainant filed an application seeking liberty to challenge the order dated 26.10.98 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali. The said application was rejected by this Court on 2.9.2002. However, the liberty was given to challenge the said order if the complainant had any right u/s. 482 Cr.RC. Thus, after passing of the order dated 2.9.2002, the instant petition being S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 830/2002 has been presented on 17.10.2002. The F.I.R. in the instant case was filed as back as in the year 1954. As far as the corruption aspect of the case is concerned, the Department of Anti Corruption has already forwarded the Final report, which has attained finality. The only allegation remains in with regard to forgery of the document and the alleged cheating. The learned Sessions Judge found that there is no document on record referred to as patta, wherein any interpolation has been made. There is no evidence worth the name with respect to any document or any patta being issued in 1937 by the erstwhile Marwar Government. I have again put the said specific query to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant. They are unable to satisfy the court with respect to existence of a document, which is alleged to have been forged or interpolation being made in any documents. It appears from the record that the complainant Mishrilal has got vested interest in the land. The complaint on face appears to be malafide, tainted with oblique motive. No case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. Both the petitions stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.;