Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 823 (RAJ)

Surendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

1997-07-15

MOHD.YAMIN

body1997
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. to quash the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu dated 8.7.93. 2. The facts may be stated in brief. First informant Dayanand lodged a report at P.S. Mandawa Distt. Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 504 IPC alleging that on 27.7.91 he was standing at bus stand Jhunjhunu with jeep No. RJ-18/T-0011. It was further alleged that the accused petitioner came there and hired his vehicle and some other vehicles on fixed charges. Members of baraat were taken in the vehicles to village Wahidpura. At about 9 a.m. petitioner sent one person to the complainant who told the drivers of the vehicles including the. complainant that the petitioner was calling them. It was mentioned that he told that one vehicle will go to Diggal in order to bring liquor. It was further alleged that the complainant and others demanded Rs. 100/- more than the fixed charges for going to Diggal. Then the petitioner is alleged to have told that he was Dy.S.P and an extra amount could not be charged from him. He also threatened that the vehicles would be seized. There were 8 or 10 other persons who were all under the influence of liquor. They slapped the complainant. It was further alleged that the complainant was beaten at the bus stand of Wahidpura thereafter and when he raised an alarm, 10 or 15 persons came there. Again the petitioner is said to have threatened him with dire consequences, etc. On report, investigation was done and ultimately the final report was submitted. It may also be stated that even during the investigation a compromise for the offences under Section 341, 323 and 504 etc. was arrived at. The police came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 147 IPC was made out. Final report was submitted. Learned Magistrate did not accept the final report. He, of course did issue notice to complainant Dayanand who did not file any protest petition or a fresh complaint. Learned Magistrate then took cognizance under Section 147. 341, 323 and 504 IPC. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Final report was submitted. Learned Magistrate did not accept the final report. He, of course did issue notice to complainant Dayanand who did not file any protest petition or a fresh complaint. Learned Magistrate then took cognizance under Section 147. 341, 323 and 504 IPC. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the matter was compromised during the investigation and the police had come to the conclusion that no offence under Section 147 IPC was made out, it is a fit case in which the order taking cognizance should be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned PR has submitted that the court may see from the record if an offence under Section 147 IPC is made out. It may also be mentioned that the complainant, though served, has not cared to appear before this court. 5. I have perused the final report as well as the order of the learned Magistrate. The police had submitted final report so far as offence under Section 147 IPC was concerned as there were no names given during the investigation. Secondly, the evidence was to the effect that only three persons were there and they were lesser in number then what is required under Section 147 IPC. 6. Of course the law is that it is in very rare cases that the court quashes the order taking cognizance. Reference may be made to State of H.P v. Prithi Chand & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R., 61 and Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309 . But from the record I find that it is a fit case in which offence under Section 147 is not made out. All other offences were compromised during the investigation. Therefore, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhriun dated 8.7.93 is quashed. Record of the lower court may immediately be sent.> Petition allowed. *******