Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 738 (RAJ)

Ramsahai v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-10

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 63/2013, registered at Police Station Malarna Doongar, Sawai Madhopur, for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 353, 392 I.P.C. and Section 21 of the Mines Act, 1952. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are Drat by a letter dated 20.4.2011, the State Mining Department had authorised one Shri Nawal Singh Ratnawat for collection of royalty and permit fees on excavation of 'Bajri' from revenue circles of Tehsil Sawai Madhopur, Bonli, Chouth-Ka-Barwara, Khandar and Malarna Doongar. In turn, Mr. Nawal Singh Ratnawat had authorised Jagdish, the petitioner No. 2, for collection of royalty on excavated 'Bajri', loaded in trucks/dumpers on Naka Malarna Station, by a authorisation letter dated 15.7.2012. Ever since 15.7.2012, Jagdish has been performing his duties. 3. On 13.3.2013, Sukhveer Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Malarna Doongar, registered a F.I.R. at Police Station Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur, wherein he claimed that he was on patrol duty with other police officers. While on patrol duty, they noticed that there was a J.C.B., which was excavating 'Bajri' from the Banas river and was loading it in a dumper, registered as RJ-05-GA-9701. The police party enquired from the driver of the dumper as well as the driver of the J.C.B., whether they had any permit or permission for excavating 'Bajri'. Both of them informed the police party that they do not have any such permit or permission. The police party spoke to Mr. Ramdayal, the Halka Patwari, who reached the place in fifteen minutes. The Patwari informed the police that the area falls in khasra No. 1824, which has been shown in the revenue record as Gair Mumkin Banas Nala (Nadi). The police also discovered fews pits about 3 to 4 feet deep, from which the J.C.B. had excavated the 'Bajri'. While the inspection was going on, suddenly ten to twelve persons came on eight to ten motorcycles. These persons included Jagdish, Ram Sahai Gurjar, Kishan Gopal Gurjar, Naresh Gurjar, Pappu Gurjar, Jugraj Gurjar and five to six other persons came and they told the S.H.O. not to seize the J.C.B. and the dumper. They also asked and faught with the police party and took away the J.C.B. and the dumper. These persons included Jagdish, Ram Sahai Gurjar, Kishan Gopal Gurjar, Naresh Gurjar, Pappu Gurjar, Jugraj Gurjar and five to six other persons came and they told the S.H.O. not to seize the J.C.B. and the dumper. They also asked and faught with the police party and took away the J.C.B. and the dumper. On the basis of this report, a formal F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 63/2013, was chalked out for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 353, 392 I.P.C. and under Section 21 of the MMDR Act. Hence, this petition before this Court for quashing of the said F.I.R. 4. Mr. Amir Aziz, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions before this Court: Firstly, Jagdish, the petitioner No. 2, was authorised by Mr. Nawal Singh Ratnawat for collecting the royalty. Therefore, he was duly authorised by a person, who was authorised by the State Mining Department itself. Secondly, the police have fabricated a false case against all the petitioners as the S.H.O. had been asking for illegal gratification from the petitioners. Since the petitioners had refused to pay the illegal gratification, they are being falsely implicated in the present case. Thirdly, the falsity of the case is obvious from the fact that the petitioner No. 1, Ramsahai happens to be an old and handicapped person, aged about 70 years. He cannot even stand without the help of others. Yet he has been named as one of the alleged accused in the F.I.R. Moreover, Kishan, the petitioner No. 3 happens to be the Vice-President of the Bajri Sangh. Meanwhile, Naresh, Pappu and Jugraj, the petitioners Nos. 4, 5 and 6 respectively, happen to be mere labourer. Lastly, the police does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with any mining operation being carried out by Jagdish. It is only the officials of the Mining Department who could possibly lodge a complaint against the petitioners for illegal mining operation. But the police cannot interfere with the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned F.I.R. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interfering with the F.I.R. is extremely limited one. In catena of cases, the Apex Court has held that the Court should take the F.I.R. as the truth for the time being. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned F.I.R. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interfering with the F.I.R. is extremely limited one. In catena of cases, the Apex Court has held that the Court should take the F.I.R. as the truth for the time being. In case, the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima-facie made out, then the Court should not interfere with the F.I.R. For, investigation is arena of the Police; the veracity of the F.I.R. can be investigated only by the Police. Therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court should refrain from entering into the said arena. Further-more, while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., at the initial stage of investigation, the High Court is not permitted to consider the evidence, which may be produced bythe defence during the course of the trial. At the initial stage, when the investigation is in progress, to enter into defence evidence would be a premature step. Therefore, the High Court should be weary of interfering with the investigation and in quashing the F.I.R. at the out set. 7. A bare perusal of the F.I.R., clearly reveals that the petitioners were caught carrying out an illegal mining operation as they could not produce either a permit or permission. Although, the learned counsel has contended that Mr. Nawal Singh Ratnawat, an authorised person by the Mining Department, had subsequently authorised Jagdish, the petitioner No. 2, but the fact remains that Jagdish was authorised to merely collect the royalty. He was not authorised to carry out an excavation. Moreover, the allegation against Jagdish is that when the police party had caught the driver of the dumper and the driver of the J.C.B. carrying out an illegal excavation of Bajri', Jagdish and others had interfered with the official working of the police, and had taken away the dumper and the J.C.B. from the possession of the police. Thus, the authorisation by Mr. Nawal Singh Ratnawat to Jagdish, to collect the royalty, would not come to his rescue. 8. The question whether Ramsahai, the petitioner No. 1, an aged and handicapped person, could possibly commit the offence, is an issue which cannot be gone into by this Court at this initial stage. Thus, the authorisation by Mr. Nawal Singh Ratnawat to Jagdish, to collect the royalty, would not come to his rescue. 8. The question whether Ramsahai, the petitioner No. 1, an aged and handicapped person, could possibly commit the offence, is an issue which cannot be gone into by this Court at this initial stage. At this stage, this Court is required to accept the allegations made in the F.I.R. as un-controverted facts. Moreover, inability to commit the offence and defence of impossibility, cannot be accepted at this juncture. It may be a plausible defence that may be available to Ramsahai, the petitioner No. 1, during the course of the trial. Therefore, it is, too, early in the day for this Court to express any opinion about the said contention. 9. Similarly, even if Kishan, the petitioner No. 3, happens to be the Vice-President of the Bajri Sangh, it would not absolve him of the allegations levelled against him by the complainant. According to the complainant, his presence is alleged. According to the complainant, he also had been instrumental in taking away the J.C.B. and the dumper and in preventing the police party from doing its official duty. 10. Similarly, allegations have also been made against petitioner Nos. 4,5 and 6. Thus, there is sufficient evidence to show that the offence has been committed. 11. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, it is hereby dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******