VIJAY BISHNOI,J. - (1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Churu (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr. Revision Petition No.1/2012 (39/09), whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner had preferred the said revision petition against the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No.240/2008, whereby the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 448 I.P.C.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2007, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Churu alleging that Bhagwan Devi Poddar Charitable Trust, Churu (for short 'the trust' hereinafter) is a private trust and Ramnath, Jagdish Prasad, Shivratan and Kamal Poddar are the trustees of the said trust and real custodial of the property of the trust. In the said complaint, description about the building of the trust situated in town Churu has been given. The complainant has alleged that on 11.07.2007, when he reached Churu from Kolkata, he came to know that in Shekhawati Edition of Dainik Bhaskar dated 20.04.2007, a general notice was published by Rajendra Kumar son of late Nandlal Saraf, resident of Churu declaring that the whole Poddar Bhawan was taken on lease by him on 16.11.2004 and 21.10.2004. It is alleged that the trustees of the trust never executed any such lease deed in favour of Rajendra Kumar and also not appointed any person as power of attorney holder for the properties of the said trust after 06.03.2002. It is further alleged that the earlier power of attorney in relation to the property of the trust given to Hanuman Prasad Poddar and Sajjan Kumar Saraswat has already been cancelled and those persons have also been informed about the same. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 16.11.2004 and 21.10.2005, no lease deed was registered by the trustees of the trust in the Registry Office and, therefore, the general notice published by Rajendra Kumar Saraf in the news paper is incorrect. The complainant has alleged that Rajendra Kumar Saraf without informing the trustees of the trust had broken the locks of the rooms of the building and put his locks on the same. The complaint has further stated that in the building various items worth of about L 30,000/- were lying in six rooms of the building and he has doubt that all the said items have been stolen by Rajendra Kumar Saraf. He has prayed that Rajendra Kumar has illegally occupied the said building and therefore, action be taken against him.
(3.) The complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was sent by the Superintendent of Police to the Police Station, Kotwali, Churu under section 154(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation on which FIR No.186/2007 has been registered against petitioner Rajendra Prasad Saraf for the offences punishable under sections 448, 454, 380 IPC on 27.07.2007. The police after thorough investigation has submitted FR No.74/2007 before the trial court, which was received in the trial court on 14.12.2007. The trial court while taking the said FR on record on 14.12.2007, ordered for issuing notice to the complainant and the next date was fixed as 18.12.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.2 put in his appearance through advocate and sought time to file protest petition, however, no protest petition was filed by the complainant though, the case was listed before the trial court on nine dates from the date of putting appearance by the complainant and on 11.09.2008, the matter was fixed for 14.11.2008. However, in the meantime on 23.10.2008, the S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Churu received the case diary from the trial court and on the very day, filed the charge-sheet No.137/2008 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 448 IPC before the trial court. The trial court vide order dated 24.10.2008 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 448 IPC. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the same has been dismissed by the revisional court vide order impugned dated 17.05.2012.;