Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 814 (RAJ)

V. P. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2008-03-17

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), whereby the trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 341,147 and 149 IPC and Section (3) (1) (v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act" hereinafter) and issued process against the petitioners. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the impugned order as also the material available on record. 3. On a report lodged by the first informant Champa Lal, being FIR No. 76/2002, Police Station, Kalu, district Pali, the police investigated the matter and after investigation, filed a negative final report. On a notice, the first informant file a protest petition and got his statement under Section 200 Cr. P.C. recorded and produced witnesses Govind Ram and Hathi Ram, who made the statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The first informant also placed on record an order of interim temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in favour of the first informant and against the petitioners restraining them to cause any hurdle in the use and occupation of the land to the first informant Champa Lal. The trial Court, by a well-reasoned and elaborate order, considering every piece of evidence available on record including the statements of first informant Champa Lal recorded, under Section 200 Cr. P.C. as also the statements of Govind Ram and Hathi Ram recorded under Section 202 Cr. P.C. came to the conclusion that the case of the first informant is consistent form the lodging of the report of the occurrence which is support by the injury report of the fist informant. At the relevant time there was an interim injunction' in favour of first informant restraining the petitioners form interfering in the possession and use of the land by the first informant. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently on an appeal against the injunction order of the Civil Judge, Jaitaran, the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.l Pali, vide order dated 20.12.2007, set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Jaitaran. 5. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequently on an appeal against the injunction order of the Civil Judge, Jaitaran, the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.l Pali, vide order dated 20.12.2007, set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Jaitaran. 5. Be that as it may from the evidence available on record, on the relevant date of the occurrence, the first informant was having possession over the land having a hut thereon and in view of the statements of three witnesses, the first informant was assaulted and caused injuries to him and, therefore, the there is prima facie evidence of unlawful assembly, wrongful restrain and causing injuries etc. against the petitioners and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in taking cognizance of the offences noticed above. 6. In Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 1734 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate has only to decide whether sufficient ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well settled that notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if the material on record makes out a case for the said purpose. The Apex Court further held that investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record reason. 7. It is settled law that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare case as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 . 7. It is settled law that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare case as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 . In Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, 2008 AIR SCW 1003 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. It is seen often that High Court exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in a routine manner as its whims and caprice setting at naught the cognizance taken and the FIR lodged at the threshold committing grave miscarriage of justice. While it is true that so long as the inherent power of Section 482 is in the Statute Book, exercise of such power is not impermissible but it must be noted that such power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, the sole aim of which is to secure the ends of justice. This power under Section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold. 8. Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and also the fact that the power under Section 482 of the Code are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (supra) and Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (supra) the order impugned cannot be said to result in manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the Court. 9. The criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim stay order dated 1.5.2003 as extended stands vacated and the stay petition stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******