Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 813 (RAJ)

Mangla Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-27

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bar in Case No. 89/2008 and the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 1, Pali H.Q. Jaitaran in Revision No. 46/2009. 2. The learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the F.R. No. 89/2008 filed by the police after investigation of F.I.R. No. 324/2008 lodged at the petitioner's instance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(v)(xii)(xv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Revisional Court affirmed the said order. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the orders passed by the Courts below and praying that the cognizance be directed to be taken against the respondents No. 2 to 5 for the aforesaid offences. 3. So far as respondent No. 5 Smt. Dali is concerned, notice of the petition could not be served upon her. Thus, this Court rejected the petition to her extent on 26.3.2012. 4. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Mangla Ram filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bar on 6.9.2008. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation and an F.I.R. No. 324/2008 was registered at P.S. Raipur for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v)(xii)(xv) of the SC/ST Act. The allegation levelled in the complaint was that the complainant's agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 300, 301 and 342 was located at Moja Kala Kot. It was further alleged that on 25.7.2008 the accused persons came to his aforesaid land and damaged his house with a J.C.B., Machine and assaulted his sister in-law Laxmi. 5. After registration of the F.I.R. the police conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer examined a number of witnesses. The Raznamcha entry dated 25.7.2008 of the P.S. Raipur was collected, wherein it was recorded that Sarpanch of Village informed on telephone that the house of Meghwals were being damaged by the J.C.B. Machine. On receiving the said information, A.S.I. Fateh Singh and one constable Ratan Lal were sent to the scene of occurrence and when they reached, they did not find that any such incident of demolition or damage to property had taken place. On receiving the said information, A.S.I. Fateh Singh and one constable Ratan Lal were sent to the scene of occurrence and when they reached, they did not find that any such incident of demolition or damage to property had taken place. No signs of any damage to the complainant's property were observed by the Police Officers. The I.O. also collected material to the effect that Smt. Laxmi had earlier on also filed an F.I.R. No. 34/2008 against the respondents wherein also, after investigation a final report was filed. The allegation regarding Laxmi having been assaulted was not verified by any injury report. Ultimately the I.O. submitted a final report in the matter. 6. The complainant filed a protest petition and examined six witnesses in support of the case. The learned Magistrate after hearing the arguments on the protest petition, by a detailed reasoned order dated 30.10.2009 proceeded to accept the final report and rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant. The order was challenged by the complainant as mentioned above by filing a revision and the Revisional Court rejected the revision and affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Now, the complainant has approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition. 7. Mr. R.S. Chundawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is ample material available on record to show that the respondents No. 2 to 4 caused extensive damage to the property of the complainant. Not only this, the complainant and his family members were assaulted and were abused at a place within public view. Thus, he contended that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition filed by the complainant. 8. Per contra, Mr. D.S. Udawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 4 has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the alleged incident took place on 24.7.2008. When the incident was allegedly happening, the police was informed and two police officers viz. Fateh Singh, A.S.I. and Ratan Lal, Constable reached the place of incident but they did not see any damage to the property and entry was made in this regard in the Roznamcha of P.S. Raipur. He contended that the complaint is belated and frivolous. When the incident was allegedly happening, the police was informed and two police officers viz. Fateh Singh, A.S.I. and Ratan Lal, Constable reached the place of incident but they did not see any damage to the property and entry was made in this regard in the Roznamcha of P.S. Raipur. He contended that the complaint is belated and frivolous. Thus, he prayed that the learned Magistrate has rightly accepted the final report and the miscellaneous petition deserves to be rejected. 9. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the orders impugned and the material available on record. The alleged incident took place on 27.7.2008 and a highly belated complaint was filed by the complainant on 6.9.2008. The complainant has not been able to give any explanation about the delay which has been occasioned in filing the complaint, it is obvious that the complainant utilised the delay for concocting a case against the accused. The entry made in the Rojnamcha of the P.S. Raipur on 27.7.2008 totally falsified the complainant's case. The trial Court while accepting the F.R. observed that the parties were inimical to each other. In this view of the matter and taking cue from the observations made in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh (dead) through LR's v. Gurpal Singh reported in AIR 2010 SC 3624 , this Court is of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complaint was highly belated, patently false and motivated and the learned Magistrate thus committed no error in accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition. The order has also been affirmed in revision. Thus, the instant miscellaneous petition is nothing but a second revision by the same party. Such a revision is barred by Section 397(3) of the C.P.C. 10. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition being bereft of any force is rejected.Petitioner dismissed. *******