Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1346 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-04-25

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.6.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3 Jhunjhunu (Raj.) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. This case has a chequered history. Therefore, it is necessary to give the facts in detail. On 11.7.2003, the non-petitioner No. 2, Sanjeev, had lodged a report with the Police Station, Gudha, District Jhunjhunu wherein he claimed that on 6.7.2003 while he was going to his maternal grand-parent's place on 6.7.2003 in his jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ-21-C-4648, he was stopped by Rajesh Kumar and Ramniwas, all residents of Vamla Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bemlas. He further alleged that he was not only assaulted by the offenders, but his jeep was also taken away by them. On the basis of the said report, a former (sic formal) FIR, FIR No. 201/2003 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 382, 34 IPC was chalked out. The investigation was handed over to the S.H.O., Shri Gopal Singh. During the course of the investigation, the jeep was recovered by the police. In order to seek its Supurdgi, two applications were filed; one by the respondent No. 2, Sanjeev, and other by the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner was the registered owner of the jeep, vide order date 1.9.2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to direct that the jeep be handed over to the petitioner. The said Supurdgi was given to the petitioner on the condition that he would not alienate or transfer the said jeep, that he would produce the jeep whenever directed by the Court and that he will deposit a security of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the Court. 3. Since the respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The case was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu. Vide order dated 15.1.2004, the learned Judge remanded the case back to the learned Judicial Magistrate and directed that since a negative Final Report has been submitted by the police, the learned Judge (sic Judicial) Magistrate should hear the case on the negative Final Report, In the last line of the order dated 15.1.2004, the learned Judge was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 1.9.2003. 4. 4. Since the case was remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, the respondent No. 2 filed an application requesting the Court to direct the production of the vehicle in question. Vide order dated 8.4.2004, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Gudha to seize the said jeep and to produce the same before the Court. Subsequently, vide order dated 21.9.2004 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show reason why the security amount deposited by him should not be realized. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the twin orders dated 8.4.2004 and 21.9.2004, he filed a revision petition before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jhunjhunu. Vide order dated 15.6.2005 the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the revision petition ostensibly on the ground that both the impugned orders were interlocutory in nature. Therefore, they could not be challenged by way of a revision petition. Hence, according to the learned Judge, the revision petition was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2005, the petitioner has filed the present petition before us. 5. Mr. D.S. Poonia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised three contentions before us; firstly that according to the order dated 15.1.2004, the Supurdgi order dated 1.9.2003 was not quashed. Instead, the learned Judicial Magistrate was directed to decide and to pass a necessary order with regard to the negative Final Report submitted by the police. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in directing the police to seize the vehicle in question. It has equally committed an error by issuing a show cause notice for invoking the security amount deposited by the petitioner. Secondly, that the order dated 8.4.2004 and 21.9.2004 are final orders. Hence, they are revisionable orders under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code'). Thirdly, that as long as the learned Judicial Magistrate has not decided on the negative Final Report, there is no reason for seizing the said vehicle and for invoking the security amount deposited by the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mathur, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2, has argued that vide order dated 15.1.2004 the learned Judge was pleased to quash the Supurdgi order. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate was legally justified in directing the S.H.O. to seize the jeep. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mathur, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2, has argued that vide order dated 15.1.2004 the learned Judge was pleased to quash the Supurdgi order. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate was legally justified in directing the S.H.O. to seize the jeep. Since the jeep was neither seized nor produced before the Court, vide order dated 21.9.2004 the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. He further contended that orders dated 8.4.2004 and 21.9.2004 are interlocutory in nature. For, vide the former order, the police has been directed to merely seize the vehicle; by the latter order, a show cause notice has been issued. Neither to these two orders substantially decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, they are not final orders, but are interlocutory ones. Therefore, the impugned order could not be challenged by filing a revision petition. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the order dated 15.6.2005 is absolutely valid and justified. The learned Public Prosecutor has also supported the impugned order dated 15.6.2005. 7. We have heard all the three parties and have perused the impugned orders dated 8.4.2004. 21.9.2004 and 15.6.2005. 8. A bare perusal of the order dated 15.1.2004 would clearly reveal that in the last line of the said order, the learned Judge was pleased to quash the order dated 1.9.2003. Therefore, after order dated 15.1.2004, the order for Supurdgi dated 1.9.2003 ceased to exist in the eyes of law. Once the very Supurdgi order became non-existent, the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in issuing the orders dated 8.4.2004 and 21.9.2004 for production of the vehicle. By order dated 8.4 2004 the police was merely directed to seize the vehicle and produce it before the Court. Since neither the police nor the petitioner produced the vehicle of his own volition, the learned Judicial Magistrate was certainly justified in passing the order dated 21.9.2004 for issuing a show cause notice for invoking the security amount. A bare perusal of the twin orders dated 8.4.2004 and 21.9.2004 would clearly reveal that they do not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. 9. It is pertinent to point out that as per Section 397(2) of the Code, a revision petition does not lie against an interlocutory order. A bare perusal of the twin orders dated 8.4.2004 and 21.9.2004 would clearly reveal that they do not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. 9. It is pertinent to point out that as per Section 397(2) of the Code, a revision petition does not lie against an interlocutory order. Therefore, the order dated 15.6.2005 whereby the revision petition has been dismissed, is absolutely legal and justified in these circumstances, we do not see any reason for interfering with the order dated 15.6.2005. However, we direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to decide the issue of the negative Final Report and to decide the issue of Supurdgi of the jeep within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order as the case has been hanging fire since 2001. We also direct the petitioner to produce the jeep before the learned Judicial Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. In case, the jeep is not produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate within the stipulated period of fifteen days by the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate shall be free to invoke the security amount deposited by the petitioner. During this period of one month, the Court shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner except to the extent indicated above. 10. With these observations, this petition is hereby disposed of.Petition disposed of accordingly. *******