Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1445 (RAJ)

Ramesh Gagneja v. State of Rajasthan

2012-06-15

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated .12.11.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar taking cognizance against him for the offences under Sections 306 and 384 Indian Penal Code in pursuance to the F.R. No. 221/2010 filed in pursuance to the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 212/2010, registered at Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar. The aforesaid order has also been affirmed in revision by order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.1, Sri Ganganagar. 2. Succinctly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that one Krishan Kumar submitted a typed report at the Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar on 15.8.2010 regarding his nephew Adarsh Kumar @ Gora having committed suicide. It was stated in the report that Adarsh Kumar @ Gora had committed suicide by hanging himself in the photo studio, which he used to run. A suicide note was allegedly recovered from the shop and as per the suicide note, the deceased wrote that he was committing suicide because of the threats being given to him by the- petitioner Ramesh Gagneja. 3. On the basis of the said report, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. Thereafter, on 20.8.2010, Smt. Renu wife of the deceased filed a typed report at the Police Station Purani Abadi, Distt. Sri Ganganagar alleging inter alia that her husband was induced by the petitioner for working with him. It was stated in the report that the petitioner got her husband to sell ten bighas of agricultural land and took most of the money himself. It was also stated in the report that her husband's blank cheques were also taken by the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner started blackmailing the deceased under the threat of misusing the same. She further alleged that the plot owned by the deceased was also got transferred by the petitioner without making payment of the consideration. The complainant also alleged that her husband had purchased a house after taking loan from the Bank, which also, he sold under the pressure exerted by the petitioner Ramesh Gagneja. She further stated that the balance amount of the loan was also misappropriated by petitioner Ramesh Gagneja. The complainant also alleged that her husband had purchased a house after taking loan from the Bank, which also, he sold under the pressure exerted by the petitioner Ramesh Gagneja. She further stated that the balance amount of the loan was also misappropriated by petitioner Ramesh Gagneja. She also mentioned in the report that petitioner was continuously harassing her husband from ten days before his death on the basis of a demand of rupees thirteen lacs. Thus, it was stated that in the report that the petitioner was responsible for the suicide committed by her husband. 4. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No. 212/2009 was registered at the Police Station Purani Abadi, Distt. Sri. Ganganagar. The suicide note written by the deceased before his death was seized and as per the suicide note, the deceased has mentioned that he had entered into a finance business with the petitioner and that he convinced number of people to invest money with petitioner Ramesh Gagneja. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to return the documents kept as security from the people who had been made to take the loan at the behest of the deceased. He further stated that his blank cheques were lying with the deceased and that his property was also sold upon the inducements given by the petitioner and as a result of these circumstances, he was left with no option but to commit suicide. 5. During the course of investigation, the complainant Renu wife of the deceased filed an application before the S.H.O. stating therein that she had filed the report under misconception and did not desire any action to be taken against the petitioner. The police thereupon proceeded to file an F.R. in the matter. Upon submission of the F.R., the complainant appeared before the Magistrate on 4.10.2010 and submitted that she did not desire any further action to be taken against the petitioner in the matter. However, the learned Magistrate by order dated 12.1.2010 proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 306 and 384 Indian Penal Code and summoned him through bailable warrants. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of taking cognizance against him by way of a revision petition and the learned revisional Court has affirmed the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Mr. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of taking cognizance against him by way of a revision petition and the learned revisional Court has affirmed the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders impugned submitted that the order impugned whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner is absolutely illegal. He submits that the complainant herself by way of an application submitted to the Investigating Officer intimated him that she was not desirous of prosecuting the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even if the allegations as leveled by the complainant are accepted to be true at the highest, then too, no prima facie case for offences under Sections 306 and 384 Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner from the admitted allegations of the prosecution. He submits that the allegations as set out in the suicide note were regarding the alleged acts of extortion committed by the petitioner against the deceased. Learned counsel submits that no documentary evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer to show that any of the events which are set out in the suicide note ever took place. Learned counsel submits that the suicide note refers to a number of property transactions having been forced upon the deceased by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that no evidence whatsoever has been collected by the Investigating Officer by way of any document etc. to show that any of the property transactions which the deceased mentioned in the suicide note were actually visualized. Thus, he submits that it is only a bald allegation in the suicide note that such transactions took place and the petitioner harassed the deceased and thereby abetted him to commit suicide. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant herself on realising the mistake filed an application before the Investigating Officer stating therein that she did not desire any action to be taken against the petitioner and that the F.I.R had been filed under a misconception. 8. Learned counsel submits that even when the notice was issued to the complainant upon the F.R. submitted by the police the complainant appeared before the trial Court and stated that she did not desire any action to be taken against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel submits that even when the notice was issued to the complainant upon the F.R. submitted by the police the complainant appeared before the trial Court and stated that she did not desire any action to be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel thus submits that the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the order of the learned revisional Court affirming the order of the learned Magistrate deserve to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel has also filed an application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1656/2012 for taking the compromise arrived at between the parties on record. The application is supported by an affidavit executed by the complainant Smt. Renu wife of the deceases. 10. Mr. Rajendra Charan, learned counsel for the complainant has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He stated that the complainant even when the investigation was going on realised that she had filed the F.I.R. under a misconception and thus she moved an application to the Investigating Officer praying that proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the F.I.R. should be closed. Learned counsel submits that when the police tiled the F.K. in the matter, the learned trial court issued a notice to the complainant and the complainant appeared and submitted before the learned trial Court that she did not desire to continue with the proceedings against the petitioner and the said fact has been recorded by the learned trial Court in its order sheet dated 4.10.2010. Learned counsel thus submits that in view of these facts and the fact that there is no evidence on the record of the case to show that the petitioner abetted the deceased to commit suicide or gave him any instigation, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 306 and 384 Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed. 11. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar and after going through the record of the case, it becomes apparent that apart from the bald allegations made in the suicide note, there is no plausible evidence, by which, a logical conclusion can be derived at regarding the petitioner having given any instigation or abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased has expressed various apprehensions in his suicide note regarding the petitioner blackmailing him but the said apprehensions are not substantiated by any evidence in relation to the alleged property or loan transactions which have been referred to in the suicide note. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner committed extortion upon the deceased. 12. In this background of the matter and looking to the fact that the complainant had herself given an application to the Investigating Officer stating therein that she was not desirous of continuing with the further proceedings against the petitioner and the fact that she stated in the trial Court also regarding her desire not to continue with the petitioner's prosecution, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 306 and 384 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.The upshot of the above discussion is that this mist.- petition succeeds. The order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 306 and 384 I.P.C in relation to the F.I.R. No. 212/2010 (F.R. No. 221/2010), registered at Police Station Purani Abadi, Distt. Sri Ganganagar as affirmed in revision by the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar and all the subsequent proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.The application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1656/2012 for taking the compromise arrived at between the parties on record is allowed and the same is disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******