Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2334 (RAJ)

Jagdish Singh Kachhwaha v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-20

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 470/2008 registered against them at Police Station Kotwali, District Pali for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B I.P.C. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 Manish lodged as F.I.R. at the P.S. Kotwali, Pali for the offences of fraud and cheating being F.I.R. No. 470/2008 dated 12.11.2008. The F.I.R. was registered against five accused namely, Dushyant Singh, Jagdish Singh (petitioner herein), Veerbala, Bhuvneshwar Singh and Amrit Parihar. 4. Dushyant Singh earlier approached this Court by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 150/2009 assailing the validity of the same F.I.R. and this Court by a detailed judgment/order dated 9.11.2010 proceeded to reject the said misc. petition repelling the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner Dushyant Singh. The said order was challenged by way of a S.L.P. Filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 34/2011. The proceedings were stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for a certain period of time but ultimately, the S.L.P. Came to be rejected by order dated 9.1.2013. 5. In the meantime, the present misc. petition had been preferred on behalf of the present petitioner Jagdish Singh (co-accused of Dushyant Singh) on virtually same grounds which were averred in the misc. petition filed by Dushyant Singh. 6. After the rejection of the S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this misc. petition was taken up for consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the role of the present petitioner is entirely different from that of Dushyant Singh whose misc. petition as well as S.L.P. have been rejected in relation to the very same F.I.R. He urged that as the role of the present petitioner is significantly and entirely different, as the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. do not give rise to even an iota of suspicion against the petitioner regarding him having committed any offence. The present misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the proceedings of the impugned F.I.R. qua the petitioner be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the proceedings of the impugned F.I.R. qua the petitioner be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the case of the present petitioner is exactly identical with that of Dushyant Singh whose misc. petitioner as well as S.L.P. has been rejected in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner is part and parcel of the conspiracy which was hatched to cheat the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the instant misc. petition also deserves dismissal. 9. Upon having given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the F.I.R. impugned, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, it is neither advisable nor feasible to hold that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. impugned do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence so as to quash the F.I.R. impugned by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. The grounds which were raised in the earlier misc. petition filed on behalf of Dushyant Singh are virtually identical to the grounds raised in the misc. petition assailing the validity of the same F.i.R. Thus, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel that the F.I.R. should be quashed to the petitioner's extent. 10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant misc. petition being bereft of any merit, is hereby rejected. 11. However, the petitioner is given a liberty,to file a detail representation to the Investigating Officer setting out the grounds of his innocence and the Investigating Officer shall give a thoughtful consideration to the representation of the petitioner before proceeding to file the result of investigation in the Court concerned. The Investigation Officer shall conclude the investigation and file the result at the earliest. Copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the Investigation Officer.Stay petition also stands rejected.Petition dismissed. *******