Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 676 (RAJ)

Gelaram Jasuja v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-01

SURESH CHANDRA SINGHAL

body2005
Judgment S.C. Singhal, J.-Initially this petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC by the petitioner for quashing the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Dausa vide his order dated 7.1996 against him, but later on it was ordered to be treated as revision by this Court vide its order dated 12.1997. Hence, this revision petition is being disposed of treating it as a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent No. 2, the complainant, Prahlad Kumar filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Dausa on 6.1993 alleging therein that he is a business man who runs his business in Pansaret Bazar Dausa in the name and style of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Bhawanishanker. Kanhaiya Lal had expired before 8 months. It was further stated in the complaint that the State Bank of India has granted a limited facility to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-. On 35.1993 without any information to the petitioner G.R. Jasuja, Bank Manager alongwith Cashier Paras Kumar Jain came to the shop of the complainant in the evening at about 5.00 PM and had taken out a cheque book and also thrown away his goods by saying that he was a thief and demanded Rs. 2,000/-as bribe. It has also been stated that when the respondent No. 2 had refused to make over the above sum of Rs. 2,000/-the whole of the incident took place. Suraj Narain, Kailash and Ramshi have been cited as witnesses to the incident. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of respondent No. 2 Prahlad Kumar under Section 200 CrPC forwarded the complaint to the SHO Police Station, Dausa, for enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. After having received the enquiry report from the Police, a protest petition was filed against the final report submitted by the Police. The learned Magistrate, after making enquiry on the protest petition and after perusing the record submitted by the police, took cognizance in the matter against the petitioner under Sections 379, 384, 504 & 448 IPC and issued process against him. The learned Magistrate, after making enquiry on the protest petition and after perusing the record submitted by the police, took cognizance in the matter against the petitioner under Sections 379, 384, 504 & 448 IPC and issued process against him. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the revision petition in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, who vide his order dated 28.1995 set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 4.1995 and the case was remanded back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with a direction to pass appropriate order after discussing the whole evidence on record in accordance with law. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the aforesaid impugned order after taking cognizance against the respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 504 and 448 IPC. Hence, this revision petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment as well as the record of the case. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant is wholly unbelievable and the cheque book which is said to have been stolen property is the property of the Bank which could not be said to have been a security until or unless it has been signed by the person holding a cheque book. It has also been argued that the cognizance taken by the Courts below is fully uncalled for as there is no cogent evidence coming out so as to prima-facie no case is made out against the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned P.P. have supported the impugned Judgment and have argued that if it appears that on consideration of the allegation in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed and there is no material on record to show that the complaint is malafide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event, there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. They cited the case of Mrs. Dhanlakshmi vs. R. Persanna Kumar & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 494 and also the case of Joginder Pal Vohra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 1998 CrLJ 2592 . 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me. 7. They cited the case of Mrs. Dhanlakshmi vs. R. Persanna Kumar & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 494 and also the case of Joginder Pal Vohra & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, 1998 CrLJ 2592 . 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me. 7. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and unless the allegations in the FIR/Complaint do not constitute a cognizable offence, the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the petitioner, the order of the Court taking cognizance cannot be said to be illegal or improper. It is settled law that in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous or vexatious, the offence instituted on a complaint could be quashed under the inherrent powers of the High Court. It is not, however, necessary that there should be maticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material on record to show that the complaint is malafide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event, there would be no justification for any interference by the High Court. After going through the complainant, made by the respondent it comes out that there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taking cognizance. It is for the complaint to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances, to hold prima-facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complainant does disclose commission of offence, there is no justification for the High Court to interfere. 8. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the cheque book which is said to have been a stolen property is not a security until or unless it is signed by the person holding the cheque book. It is pertinent here to mention that in the complaint itself , it has not been specifically mentioned by the complaint (sic) that the said cheque book was blank or not signed. It is pertinent here to mention that in the complaint itself , it has not been specifically mentioned by the complaint (sic) that the said cheque book was blank or not signed. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage for which the accused petitioner would have a right to cross-examine him. The learned CJM after analysing the complaint and the statement on oath of the complainant, has passed a detailed order by which he has taken the cognizance of the offences against the accused petitioner. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. 9. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.