Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2102 (RAJ)

Prakash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2012-10-06

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 and perused the impugned orders dated 21.9.2012 and 28.6.2012 passed by the Courts below. 2. The instant petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the accused-petitioner challenging order dated 21.9.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra District-Barmer (herein after referred to as 'the revisional Court') in Criminal Revision No. 87/2012 (47/2012) whereby the learned revisional Court affirmed order dated 28.6.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 770/2012, allowing application under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code of the complainant-respondent No. 2 Smt. Shant Devi and took cognizance against the accused-petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B Indian Penal Code instead of offence under Sections 465, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 Mrs. Shanti Devi, sister of the petitioners, filed a complaint on 27.8.2010 before the learned trial Court, inter alia, alleging that the accused persons (herein after referred to as 'the petitioners') are brothers of the complainant. There exists a firm M/s National Automobiles in Barmer, which was owned by Shri Bhanwar Lal, Advocate father of the complainant and the petitioners. Shri Bhanwar Lal died on 17.12.1975 and after his death, the complainant has every right and share in the properties and business owned by her father. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, in order to grab her share in the properties and the firm, fraudulently prepared false and fabricated affidavit and submitted the same before the Indian Oil Corporation, whereby above firm was transferred in the name of petitioners. Then, a complaint was lodged by the complainant, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to Police Station, where F.I.R. No. 285/2010 at P.S. City Kotwali, Barmer was registered. 4. Then, a complaint was lodged by the complainant, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to Police Station, where F.I.R. No. 285/2010 at P.S. City Kotwali, Barmer was registered. 4. After due investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code Thereafter, the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed an application before the learned trial Court under Section 120 Criminal Procedure Code to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 Indian Penal Code in addition to offences under Sections 465, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code The learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B Indian Penal Code and issued warrants of arrest and also initiated proceedings under Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the revisional Court, who rejected the revision petition filed by petitioners vide impugned order dated 21.9.2012 and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, this misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, without challenging the impugned orders dated 21.9.2012 and 28.6.2012 on merits, only prayed that the arrest warrants issued against accused-petitioners be converted into bailable warrants and the proceedings under Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners may be dropped. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose this prayer in the facts and circumstances as also in the interest of justice. 8. Having considered the rival submissions of respective parties and after going through the orders impugned dated 21.9.2012 and 28.6.2012, I find no error or illegality apparent on the fact of the record and no interference, whatsoever, is required by this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code Consequently, this criminal misc. petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. However, considering the request made on behalf of the accused-petitioners, in the interest of justice and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (1) SCC (Cri.) 259, Indra Mohan Goswami and Ors. v. State of Uttranchal and Ors. , the arrest warrants issued against the accused-petitioners are converted into bailable warrants, in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each. v. State of Uttranchal and Ors. , the arrest warrants issued against the accused-petitioners are converted into bailable warrants, in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each. The petitioners shall appear before the learned trial Court and submit bail bonds in terms of bailable warrants within a period of four weeks from today. 10. The proceedings under Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code initiated against the accused-petitioners are also hereby ordered to be dropped. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all their objections at the appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of framing of charges before learned trial Court.The stay petition also accordingly stands disposed of.Petition dismissed. *******