Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 999 (RAJ)

Nanu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-19

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the F.I.R. No. 210/2011 registered at the Police State, Ladnun, Distt. Nagaur, against the petitioners. 2. Specific plea which was taken in the misc. petition was that the petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 whose presence has been shown as the assailants in the F.I.R. as a matter of fact were not present at the scene of occurrence. The claim of the petitioner No. 1 was that he was present in the Parliament House on the day of the occurrence i.e. on 25.8.2011. A copy of the visitor slip issued to petitioner by the Lok Sabha, secretariat on 25.8.2011 for the time between 13.19 P.M. to 14.29 P.M. which was duly acknowledged by the. petitioner No. 1 has been placed or record. 3. For petitioner No. 2 it was claimed that he was admitted in the Govt. Hospital at Ladnun on the date of occurrence and thus his participation in the incident was not possible. The Investigating Officer was directed to verify the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner and the Investigating Officer Shri Hema Ram and Shri Naresh Chita present in the Court on 27.3.2012 stated that the presence of petitioner No. I was found to be in Parliament House on the day of the occurrence and therefore, his alleged participation in the incident was found to be false. 4. So far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, on perusal of the treatment slip of petitioner No. 2, it appears that he had absconded from hospital.while having treatment and thus his participation in the incident could not ruled out. 5. Today Shri Ashok Kulshresth, Addl. Superintended of Police, Ladnun who claims to have investigated the matter for some point of time has appeared and submits that petitioner No. 1 is now found involved in the conspiracy to commit the offence. He submits that the following circumstances proved the conspiracy of the petitioners in the alleged incident. 5. Today Shri Ashok Kulshresth, Addl. Superintended of Police, Ladnun who claims to have investigated the matter for some point of time has appeared and submits that petitioner No. 1 is now found involved in the conspiracy to commit the offence. He submits that the following circumstances proved the conspiracy of the petitioners in the alleged incident. (1) That there is an enmity between two families; (2) That criminal cases have been registered between both the parties and charge sheet has been filed in the cases and disputes in the revenue Courts are going on between the parties; (3) That the injured does not have inimical terms with anybody; (4) That the petitioners were assaulted by the complainant party and for the said assault criminal cases have been registered against them. 6. When the Addl. Superintended of Police, Ladnun, was asked to apprise this Court about the positive evidence and having conspiracy between the accused persons, he states that accused has created evidence of alibi deliberately and therefore, he can be presumed to be a conspirator for the offence. He further submits that it is on the basis of assumptions and presumption from the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner No. 1 is being found to be conspirator of the incident. The Investigating Officer states that he will seek proper action against the complainant for naming the petitioner No. 1 falsely in the F.I.R. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the misc. petition and submits that petitioner No. 1 was very the conspiracy. He submits that the petitioner No. 1 is an influenced person and he managed to have his presence marked in the Parliament for the purpose of creating a defence whereas actually he was present at the scene of occurrence and participated in the incident. Thus, he submits that the instant misc. petition may not be accepted. 8. Upon consideration of the material available on record, it reveals that there is a long standing history of litigation between the parties. As may as ten criminal cases have been found to be filed against the petitioners out of them and the Final Report has been proposed is six of them. 9. In the background of these circumstances, the likelihood and possibility of the complainant implicating the petitioner No. 1 falsely in the criminal cases cannot be ruled out. The submissions which have been made by the Addl. 9. In the background of these circumstances, the likelihood and possibility of the complainant implicating the petitioner No. 1 falsely in the criminal cases cannot be ruled out. The submissions which have been made by the Addl. SP for apprising this Court that petitioner No. 1 has been found to be conspirator in the incident are not convincing on the face of the record. Merely because there-is a history of litigation between the parties, that cannot be a reason to assume that accused entered into conspiracy to commit assault on the complainant. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the misc. petition. is partly allowed and it is ordered that proceedings of the F.I.R. impugned to the extent of qua the petitioner No. 1 amount to an abuse of the process of the Law, therefore, in order to secure ends of justice, the proceedings of F.I.R. No. 210/2011 registered at lice Station Ladnun qua petitioner No. 1 are hereby quashed but the proceedings of the F.I.R. shall continue for petitioner No. 2.Petition partly allowed. *******