Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1258 (RAJ)

Bhoj Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-01

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this cri.misc. petition are that the petitioner- complainant filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate , Churu alleging inter alia that accused - respondent No.2 Jai Kishan is the President of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti, Jharia and one Kumbha Ram is its Manager since several years. It is further averred that the Samiti purchases stuffs for consumers from Churu Cooperative Consumer Wholesale Store Ltd. and Jai Kishan , respondent No.2, along with Kumbha Ram commits irregularities in distribution and embezzles public property and accused respondent No.2 is committing mischief and forgery, amongst other offences in collusion with Kumbha Ram. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation to the SHO Police Station Kotwali, Churu whereupon FIR No.183/2007 was registered against the accused respondent No.1 for the offence under section 419, 420, 467,4 68, 471 and 120B IPC. 3. After investigation, police filed negative final report. The learned trial court issued notice to the complainant petitioner and the petitioner sought time for submitting protest petition but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu vide its order dated 28.11.2007 accepted the Negative Final report. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu vide its order dated 12.06.2008. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred this cri. misc. petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, is a gross error of law, in accepting the final negative report on the very first day after receiving the notice. The complainant petitioner has engaged two lawyers Mr. Sher Singh Punia and Lalit Gautam, to contest the final negative report but the learned trial court observed that the petitioner is not willing to file any protest petition and while giving no opportunity to file protest petition, decided the case and accepted the final negative report on the same day. Notices were issued on 23.11.2007 and no notice was served upon the complainant. But being very vigilant , he engaged two lawyers to attend the court on his behalf on 28.11.2007 and on that day itself, the learned Magistrate accepted the final negative report. Notices were issued on 23.11.2007 and no notice was served upon the complainant. But being very vigilant , he engaged two lawyers to attend the court on his behalf on 28.11.2007 and on that day itself, the learned Magistrate accepted the final negative report. Therefore, the order of the learned trial court , as affirmed by the learned revisional court, amounts to abuse of the process of law and prayed that this Court may exercise the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and to quash the impugned orders. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that notices were ordered to be issued on 23.11.2007 and the next date was fixed as 28.11.2007 and the notice was served upon the petitioner Bhoj Raj on 28.11.2007 but the petitioner has pleaded in his petition that no notice was served on the petitioner and he being vigilant enough, engaged two lawyers. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the order of the learned trial court as well as the revisional court. 7. The original record of the learned trial court has already been called and in the above file there is a notice issued in the name of the present petitioner Bhoj Raj , signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.11.2007 and served on the petitioner on 28.11.2007 and as per the order sheet of the trial court dated 28.11.2007 the presence of Sher Singh Punia and Lalit Gautam was marked on that day and they pleaded that they did not want to file any protest petition. Thus, the pleading made in the petition itself are contrary to the fact that no notice was issued or served in the name of the present petitioner whereas the record of the criminal case shows that notice was issued on 26.11.2007 and it was served upon the petitioner on 28.11.2007. The record of the criminal case cannot be said to be false, because it is an admitted fact that the petitioner engaged two lawyers Sher Singh Pounia and Lalit Gautam and the presence of both the advocates, has been marked in the order sheet dated 28.11.2007. 8. The record of the criminal case cannot be said to be false, because it is an admitted fact that the petitioner engaged two lawyers Sher Singh Pounia and Lalit Gautam and the presence of both the advocates, has been marked in the order sheet dated 28.11.2007. 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the petitioner was effectively represented by two advocates and they have not opted for filing protest petition , the order of the learned trial court, as well as the revisional court, cannot be termed as abuse of the process of law and no indulgence is required by this Court so as to secure the ends of justice. 9. Therefore, this cri.misc. Petition is dismissed and the order of the learned trial court, as well as the revisional court, are maintained.Petition dismissed. *******