Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1666 (RAJ)

Khushi Mohd v. State of Rajasthan

2008-07-10

PRAKASH TATIA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute are that non-petitioner no.2- complainant father of Anisha who is wife of accused-petitioner no.1 Khushi Mohd. submitted a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu which was registered as private complaint case no.7/2005 and was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station, Kotwali, Churu, upon which FIR No.262 dated 14.11.2005 was registered. In the complaint, the complainant stated that the complainant's daughter married with the accused-petitioner no.1 at Sujangarh where goods were given to the complainant's daughter Baby @ Anisha. On 16.8.2005 complainant's daughter's articles (described as Istri Dhan) were mis-appropriated by all the accused petitioners and the complainant's daughter was thrown out after giving beating. It is submitted that the petitioners have committed offence under Section 406 and 498 IPC. 3. On the same set of facts, FIR no.158 was lodged on 9.11.2005 at Sujangarh Police Station. Facing these prosecution on the same set of allegations, the petitioners preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and challenged the prosecution at Sujangarh for want of jurisdiction. 4. This Court vide order dated 13.12.2005 directed investigating officer to proceed with the investigation in pursuance of the FIR No.262/05 at Churu and stayed investigation in pursuance of the FIR no.158/2005 at Police Station Sujangarth. 5. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the investigating agency in the matter of FIR no.262/2005 at Churu submitted FR on 13.11.2005 only on the ground that the matter is pending investigation at Sujangarh obviously in pursuance of the FIR no.158/2005. The said report was submitted in spite of the fact that vide order of this Court dated 13.12.2005 the investigation in pursuance of the FIR NO.158/2005 was stayed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when said FR was filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 4.4.2006 directed investigating agency to complete the investigation in the light of the interim order passed by this Court referred above as the investigation in FIR No.262/2005 at Churu has not been stayed, but investigation in pursuance of FIR No.158/2005 at Police Station Sujangarh was stayed. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in fact, the accused were arrested at Sujangarh and articles were recovered in the FIR No.158/2005 by the Police Station at Sujangarh, therefore, the substantial investigation took place in pursuance of FIR No.158/2005 at Police Station Sujangarh. It is submitted that in case the prosecution will proceed at Churu in pursuance of the FIR No.262/2005, then valuable material collected against the petitioners will not be available in the FIR case no.262/2005 at Churu and that will cause serious prejudice to the prosecution of the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the prosecution at Sujangarh is at the place where neither the court nor the police station has territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the prosecution at Sujangarh cannot proceed and the proper procedure is only by collecting all the material collected and alleged to have been recovered from the petitioners in FIR No.158/2005 can be collected and taken over by the investigating agency investigating in pursuance of FIR No.262/2005, which is pending at Churu. Only grievance of the petitioners is that they cannot be subjected to two prosecution for one set of allegation for commission of offence. 9. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that there can be only one prosecution and it can be at one place and that is correct approach of learned counsel for the parties in the matter of assisting the court. 10. In view of the fact that the investigation can proceed at Churu in view of the allegations levelled in the complaint and this Court stayed the investigation in pursuance of FIR No.158/2005 at Police Station Sujangarh then in that situation, it will be just and proper to quash the FIR No.158/2005 and direct the investigating agency to complete the investigation in pursuance of FIR No.262/2005 at Churu and in that process they may collect all material and evidence, which were collected by the investigating agency in pursuance of the FIR No.158/2005 at Police Station Sujangarh and all material be treated to be part of the record in the investigation in pursuance of FIR No.262/2005. 11. In view of the above reasons, this misc petition is allowed and the FIR No.158/2005 registered at Police Station Sujangarh is quashed with above directions.Petition Allowed *******