Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1533 (RAJ)

Mukna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been preferred against the order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in connection with F.I.R. No. 32/2013 and F.R. No. 18/2013 of the Police Station Sojat City, whereby the F.R. submitted by the Investigating Officer was accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. was signed by a number of other persons apart from Kachra Ram, whose name is shown as sole first informant. He submits that while accepting the F.R., all the aggrieved persons, who signed the F.I.R., were required to be given notice and provided opportunity of hearing before accepting the F.R. The Investigating Officer informed about the date of filing of the F.R. to Kachra Ram alone who appeared before the trial Court on the same day and conceded that the F.R. be accepted. Accordingly, the trial Court accepted the F.R. without giving any notice or providing any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners, who are also affected/aggrieved persons. He submits that ex-facie the impugned order accepting the F.R. is illegal and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh v. The Commissioner of Police & Anr. reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1285. He thus prays that the instant misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Kachra Ram was the sole first informant and he was present in the Court on the date on which the F.R. was submitted. He did not object to the F.R. and accordingly the Court rightly accepted the same and thus, the order impugned does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. 5. Considered the arguments raised at the Bar, perused the order impugned as well as the F.I.R. 6. The F.I.R. is signed by the present petitioners Mukna Ram, Heera Ram and Mangi Lal as aggrieved persons, Kachra Ram is the person who presented the F.I.R. but the fact remains that a grievance was raised in the F.I.R. by a number of persons including the petitioners. The F.I.R. is signed by the present petitioners Mukna Ram, Heera Ram and Mangi Lal as aggrieved persons, Kachra Ram is the person who presented the F.I.R. but the fact remains that a grievance was raised in the F.I.R. by a number of persons including the petitioners. Thus, before the F.R. could be accepted, all the aggrieved persons were required to be given a notice so as to provide them an opportunity to protest against the same. Admittedly, no notice was given by the Court concerned to the present, petitioners before accepting the F.R. The order impugned is totally in contravention to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh (supra). 7. In view of the above discussion, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 8.4.2013 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court. The trial Court shall issue notice of the F.R. to the concerned aggrieved persons, whose names are set out in the F.R., and thereafter shall, provide an opportunity of hearing to them before passing any order on the F.R.Stay petition also stand disposed of.Petition allowed. *******