Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 174 (RAJ)

Akalovya Bhansali v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-19

N.N.MATHUR

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioners seek direction to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 3, Jodhpur dated 212.2003, taking cognizance against them for offences under Sections 353, 332, 147 and 149, IPC. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on 16.04.2003 at 12:40 noon, one Guru Bhupendra Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Udaimandir, Submitted a written report, stating inter alia that on the said day in connection with the investigation of FIR Case No. 181/2003 for offence under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act and 188 IPC, he visited the Court premises seeking assistance from the President, Bar Association for the arrest of one Deshraj Kalla Advocate. Before the could talk to the President of the Bar Association, he found that Advocate Deshraj Kalla with some other Advocates coming out from the High Court premises. It is alleged that Deshraj Kalla instigated his fellow lawyers to make an assault on him. It is further alleged that Deshraj Kalla gave a blow on his left eye. The other Advocates also made an assault on him. The said Advocates cause obstruction in discharge of his official duty by making assault on him. On this information, Police registered a case for offence under Sections 535, 332, IPC. After investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 353, 332, 147 and 149, IPC. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the police papers. 4. The names of the present petitioners’ Akalovya Bhansali, Dhirendra Singh and Chain Singh do not appear in the First Information Report. The specific case of the complainant is that the blow was given by one Deshraj Kalla Advocate. At the subsequent stage the name of the petitioners have been included. One Rajendra Singh a Police Constable has stated after two days of the incident has named petitioners herein among the lawyers attacked on S.I Guru Bhupendra Singh. He has also stated that at that time he was alongwith other Police party was on the stairs of main gate of the High Court. His statement shows that the Police was entering to apprehend a Lawyer for a minor offence. They had no business to enter into main Court premises to arrest a lawyer. He has also stated that at that time he was alongwith other Police party was on the stairs of main gate of the High Court. His statement shows that the Police was entering to apprehend a Lawyer for a minor offence. They had no business to enter into main Court premises to arrest a lawyer. If , it is so, the matter requires to be seriously viewed. Otherwise, there is no evidence worth the name to show that the petitioners in any way obstructed the complainant in discharge his official duty. It further appears that the complainant was advised to approach to the President of the Bar Association seeking assistance for the interrogation of Mr. Deshraj Kalla. It appears that the complainant Sub-Inspector has unnecessary exaggerated the matter and tried to implicate the lawyers. He was excepted to act in more sober manner. Be that as it may. There is no evidence worth the name to put the petitioners to trial for the aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate has committed illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 353, 332, 147 & 149, IPC. The continuance of proceedings against the petitioners for the aforesaid process is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 3, Jodhpur dated 212.2003 taking cognizance for aforesaid offences against the petitioners is quashed and set aside.