Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2335 (RAJ)

Mahaveer v. State of Rajasthan

2012-12-18

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar in F.R. No. 85/2001 rejecting the protest petition filed by the petitioner as affirmed in revision by order dated 6.9.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the petitioner claiming himself to be an Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Mokamwala, Tehsil Raisinghnagar lodged a F.I.R. on 6.5.2001 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 143, 336, 427, 504 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act arraying the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 as accused. The allegation as set out in the F.I.R. was that when the petitioner was travelling in his own jeep from Raisinghnagar on the road which passes from Chak 6 PTD, at that time, the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 came near the vehicle of the complainant and drove their vehicle rashly so as to over turn the complainant's vehicle. It was further alleged that 4he respondents Nos. 2 to 6 thereafter started quarrelling and assaulted the petitioner. It was further alleged that the respondents fired two gun shots but the same did not hit the petitioner. An allegation was also levelled against the respondents that the petitioner's jeep was also damaged. It was further alleged that the petitioner met the Addl. S.P., Raisinghnagar and filed a complaint for taking action against the accused, but when no action was forthcoming on his request, he met the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 11.4.2001 and thereafter filed a private complaint against the respondents. The complaint was sent to the Police Station, Raisinghnagar under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, on which, an F.I.R. No. 170/2001 was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigation commenced. 3. The police after investigation submitted a negative F.R. in the matter. The petitioner upon receiving the notice of the F.R. filed by the police appeared in the Court of the concerned Magistrate and filed a protest petition, but the learned Magistrate by order dated 6.9.2005 rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the F.R. The petitioner challenged the order rejecting his protest petition by way of a revision and the same was also rejected by the Revisional Court i.e. the learned Addl. Sessions lodge, Raisinghnagar by order dated 6.9.2007. 4. Hence, the present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the orders passed by the learned Courts below and seeking a direction that the accused respondents should be summoned to face trial for the alleged offences as mentioned by the petitioner in the F.I.R. 5. Learned counsel Mr. S.L. Jain appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the material as collected by the police during the course of the investigation was sufficient for summoning the accused respondents to face trial for the offences set out in the complaint. He submits that at the stage of taking cognisance, a meticulous examination of the evidence is not required and only a prima facie case has to be seen for proceeding against the accused. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby, the complainant's protest petition has been rejected and the F.R. has been accepted is an order which cannot stand to scrutiny by this Court because the learned Magistrate has rejected the complainants protest petition and has accepted the F.R. by making a meticulous examination of the evidence. He further submits that the learned Revisional Court has fallen in the same error, as such, the order passed by the learned Courts below be quashed and the accused respondents be directed to be summoned for facing trial. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel Mr. N.L. Joshi appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. N.L. Joshi appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 (respondent No. 6 has expired) submits that the police after thorough investigation of the case has rightly arrived at a finding that the complaint filed by the petitioner was patently false having been lodged for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. He submits that the allegations of the complainant are neither supported by any medical evidence nor the story is corroborated by any mechanical examination of the jeep. He submits that the incident is said to have taken place on 2.4.2001 and the complainant, who be the Ex-Sarpanch was a law knowing person did not take any action against the accused respondents for a long period of time and ultimately initiated the proceedings by filing a belated complaint on 23.7.2001. He submits that the incident is said to have taken place on 2.4.2001 and the complainant, who be the Ex-Sarpanch was a law knowing person did not take any action against the accused respondents for a long period of time and ultimately initiated the proceedings by filing a belated complaint on 23.7.2001. He further submits that two Courts have arrived at a concurrent finding that the accused respondents did not commit any offence whatsoever and, therefore, the instant misc. petition is nothing but a second revision in the garb of misc. petition, as such, the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. 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 and upon perusal of the orders impugned passed by the learned Courts below, it is apparent that in this case, the complainant is an Ex-Sarpanch and for a incident which is said to have taken place on 2.4.2001, he chose to wait for a period of almost 21 days before filing the complaint. There is no rhyme or reason or justification on the record to show as to why the complainant chose to wait for such a long period of time before launching the prosecution against the accused respondents. That apart, the theory as set up by the complainant regarding the alleged act of beating, damaging the jeep and firing gun shots as attributed to the accused is not supported by the medical evidence or physical verification of the jeep. No injuries were found on the person of the complainant and the jeep was also not mechanically examined for any damage as has been alleged in the complaint. The two Courts below have already examined the matter in detail and have arrived at a conclusion that the accused respondents did not commit any offence whatsoever. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the instant case is not such a case, wherein, the inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised for the purpose of directing the accused respondents to stand trial in this case. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of revisional jurisdiction by challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Revisional Court has also not found favour with the petitioner. 8. Therefore, the present misc. The petitioner has already availed the remedy of revisional jurisdiction by challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Revisional Court has also not found favour with the petitioner. 8. Therefore, the present misc. petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is nothing but a second revision in the garb of the misc. petition. A second revision by the same party is barred by virtue of Section 397(3) Criminal Procedure Code 9. Resultantly, the misc. petition being bereft of any force is hereby-dismissedPetition dismissed. *******