Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1956 (RAJ)

Ram Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2010-11-24

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the Additional Chef Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Div.), Kotputali, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, and also aggrieved by the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputali, district Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 28.7.2006, petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 8.7.2005, the complainant, Ashwini Kumar, filed a criminal complaint in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali, alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Mohan Singh Bhagwan Singh and Smt. Ramesh Kanwar. The learned Magistrate sent the complairt for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.PC. to the concerned police station., The police registered a FIR, FIR No. 441/2005, against three accused persons named above, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B IPC. According to the contents of the complainant, one Arjun Singh S/0 Shri Richpal Singh scummed to the injuries sustained in a road accident on 4.1.2004, of which an FIR bearing No. 3/2004 came to be registered at Police Station, Ladakabas and after investigation challan was filed against the accused. Arjun Singh, at the time of accident, was unmarried. But the accused persons, namely, Mohan Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Smt. Ramesh Kanwar W/O Shri Bhagwan hatched a criminal conspiracy : pretending Smt. Ramesh Kanwar to be the wife of Arjun Singh, they approached the present petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, to file a claim petition on her behalf. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed claim petition No. 79/2004 duty supported by an affidavit of Smt. Ramesh Kanwar, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He succeeded in getting an interim award of Rs. 50,000/- on 28.2.2006. 3. In the course of investigation, the police discovered the involvement of the present petitioner in filing of the false claim petition. Accordingly, the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and the three accused persons mentioned above for the offences aforementioned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner happens to be a lawyer who was approached by the co-accused persons, namely Mohan Singh, Bhagwan Sahay and Smt.Ramesh Kanwar. Accordingly, the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and the three accused persons mentioned above for the offences aforementioned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner happens to be a lawyer who was approached by the co-accused persons, namely Mohan Singh, Bhagwan Sahay and Smt.Ramesh Kanwar. He was engaged by Smt. Ramesh Kanwar in order to file a claim petition as her husband Arjun Singh had expired in a vehicular accident However, subsequently it was discovered by the complainant that in fact Arjun Singh was unmarried and Smt. Ramesh Kanwar was the wife of Bhagwan Sahay, co- accused in this case. According to the learned counsel, petitioner being a lawyer, could not know the identity of Ramesh Kanwar, but was merely engaged to file a claim petition on her behalf. Therefore, there is not an iota of evidence to frame charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 1208 IPC. Thus, the charge framed by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner is highly misplaced. In order to buttress this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Hiralal v. Delhi Administration, 1973 Crl. L.J. 47 . He has also relied on the case of Prem Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 R.L.R. 1073 . Lastly, learned counsel has contended that although the complainant in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. has alleged a criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and other co-accused persons, but in his complaint filed before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputali, he had not whispered a word about involvement of the petitioner. Hence, his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. is unreliable. 5. On the other hand. learned Public Prosecutor has contended that not only the complainant, but even two other witnesses, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Gokul Chand Saini have stated in their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC. that other co-accused persons knowing fully well that deceased Arjun Singh was bachelor and Smt. Ramesh Kanwar was not wife of Arjun Singh entered into conspiracy with the petitioner and filed a false claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali. Secondly, at the time of framing of charge, the learned Magistrate is required to see whether a strong prima facie case exists against the petitioner or not. At this juncture, he cannot go into meticulous examination of the evidence. Secondly, at the time of framing of charge, the learned Magistrate is required to see whether a strong prima facie case exists against the petitioner or not. At this juncture, he cannot go into meticulous examination of the evidence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor. considering the statements of three witnesses, there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in framing charges against the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused both the orders. 7. Indeed, it is a settled position of law that at the time of framing charge, the learned Magistrate is concerned only with the existence of a strong prima facie case. At this initial stage. he cannot meticulously examine the evidence. Complainant Ashwini Kumar in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. has clearly alleged that other co-accused were well aware of the fact that Arjun Singh was unmarried as other two accused were related to him. He has further alleged that two accused went to the petitioner and entered into criminal conspiracy to file a false case. Similar statement has also been given by Rakesh Kumar and Gokul Chand Saini. Thus, a strong prima facie case is apparent against the petitioner. 8. Merely because the complainant has not mentioned this fact in his complaint. would not dilute the veracity of his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. Even if it amounts to omission at this stage, the Court cannot act upon It. The issue, whether this omission amounts to contradiction, and the Issue whether criminal conspiracy actually existed or not, between the four accused persons; are the issues which have to be tested, tried and adjudicated upon by the trial Court. It is too early in the day to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely because this fact has not been mentioned in the criminal complaint, the veracity of the complainant's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has become doubtful. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******