Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 444 (RAJ)

Mahaveer v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 7.6.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in revision petition No.39/2010 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the trial court has accepted the FR No.583/2009 arising out of FIR No.471/2009. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint against Girdhari Lal and Bablu in the trial court on 5.10.2009 with the allegation that the above named persons have entered into a criminal conspiracy and cheated him. The said complaint was forwarded by the trial court to the Police Station Raisingh Nagar wherein FIR No.471/2009 dated 9.10.2009 was registered against Girdhari Lal and Bablu for the offence punishable under Section 420/120-B I.P.C. 3. After investigation, the police filed negative final report while concluding that no offence is made out against the accused persons named in the complaint. The learned trial court issued notice to the petitioner on 15.1.2010. The said notice was served upon the petitioner personally, however, the petitioner did not appear before the Court on 22.2.2010 upto 4:30 PM, then the trial court after taking into consideration the final report submitted by the police found that there is no basis for taking cognizance against the persons named in the complaint and has accepted the FR. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the trial court whereby the FR submitted by the police was accepted, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court dismissed the said revision petition while taking into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the final report submitted by the police. 5. The learned revisional court has also observed that despite personal service of the notice upon the petitioner, he failed to appear before the trial court and also failed to contend that his signature appended upon the back of notice are forged. 5. The learned revisional court has also observed that despite personal service of the notice upon the petitioner, he failed to appear before the trial court and also failed to contend that his signature appended upon the back of notice are forged. The revisional court has also taken into consideration that the petitioner has not made party to the accused persons in the revision petition and, therefore, no order can be passed against the said persons without hearing them. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial court has erred in accepting the FR without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to file protest petition and the revisional court has also dismissed the revision in cursory manner. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the orders passed by the courts below may be quashed and set aside and the matter be remitted to the trial court to decide the case after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and, therefore, no interference is required to be made under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 9. It is not in dispute that despite service of notice upon the petitioner, he failed to appear before the trial court and after taking into consideration the contents of final report, the trial court has passed the impugned order dated 22.2.2010 of accepting the final report. The revisional court after taking into consideration the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and after thoroughly examining the final report submitted by the police, has dismissed the revision petition while holding that no case for taking cognizance against the respondents No.2 and 3 is made out. The revisional court has rightly observed that the petitioner has failed to implead the accused persons as party respondent in the revision petition and, therefore, no order can be passed against them without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court that why he has not made party to the accused persons before the revisional court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court that why he has not made party to the accused persons before the revisional court. 10. This Court finds that the order passed by the revisional court is well considered and reasoned order wherein the revisional court has taken into consideration the contents of final report in detail and dismissed the revision petition. 11. In the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the revisional court. Hence, there is no force in this petition.The criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******