Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1052 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-12

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. The matter comes up for consideration of two applications i.e. S.B. Cr. Misc. Application Nos.353/2015 and 414/2015 filed on behalf of the applicants - Salim Shah S/o Abdul Shah and Abdul Aziz S/o Ghasi Khan. 2. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.353/2015, the applicants have prayed that they may be directed to be impleaded as non-petitioner Nos.3 and 4 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1244/2014. However, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.414/2015, the applicants have prayed for reconstitution of the record of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1244/2014. 3. It is noticed that the original record of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1244/2014 is now traced out, hence, S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.414/2015 is dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the petitioner on S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.353/2015. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the applicant Nos.3 and 4 are allowed to intervene in the matter. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.353/2015 is disposed of. 6. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 7. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.195/2012 was registered against the petitioners and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 295 and 297 IPC at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara on 19.04.2012. The police after investigation, has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 295 and 297 IPC on 18.03.2013. At the time of consideration of the Charge-sheet/Final Report No.121/2013 in FIR No.195/2012, the applicant Salim Shah has moved an application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') while contending that the other complainants have also filed Complaint Nos.104/2012 and 112/2012 before the trial court and those complaints have been sent for investigation to the police, however, the police has not conducted any investigation in respect of those complaints and has filed charge-sheet, after conducting investigation only into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.195/2012. It is prayed that the police be directed to investigate into the allegations levelled in the aforementioned complaints also. It is prayed that the police be directed to investigate into the allegations levelled in the aforementioned complaints also. The trial court vide order dated 24.04.2014 while considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicant Salim Shah and the charge-sheet submitted by the police, has ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 295 and 297 IPC, however, further directed the police to conduct investigation into the private Complaint Nos.104/2012 and 112/2012 and also directed that after conducting further investigation, the police may file supplementary charge-sheet or whatever the conclusions before it. 8. Being aggrieved with the order dated 24.04.2014, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the directions given by the trial court on 24.04.2014, the further investigation into the private complaints have also been concluded by the police and the supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed by the police on 12.08.2014. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the police has conducted further investigation and filed supplementary charge-sheet, the trial court should be directed to pass a fresh order regarding taking cognizance against the petitioner and other accused persons after taking into consideration the conclusions filed by the police in the supplementary charge-sheet. 10. However, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Public Prosecutor have submitted that if any such direction regarding consideration of conclusion of supplementary charge-sheet is given by this Court then a direction may also be issued to the trial court to take into consideration the objections/protest petition of the applicants in respect of conclusions of the police arrived at in the charge-sheet as well as the supplementary charge-sheet. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 12. It is true that the trial court after taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 295 and 297 IPC has given a direction to the Investigating Agency to conduct further investigation into the private complaints filed by the applicant Salim Shah and other persons. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 12. It is true that the trial court after taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 295 and 297 IPC has given a direction to the Investigating Agency to conduct further investigation into the private complaints filed by the applicant Salim Shah and other persons. It is admitted that pursuant to the direction given by the trial court vide impugned order dated 24.04.2014, the police has carried out the further investigation and submitted the supplementary charge-sheet dated 12.08.2014 and in the circumstances, when the police has already concluded the further investigation and filed a supplementary charge sheet then in the interest of justice a direction is to be issued to the trial court to pass a fresh order regarding taking cognizance against the petitioner and the other accused persons after taking into consideration the conclusions arrived at by the police in the earlier charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheet. 13. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in FIR No.195/2012 is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the conclusions arrived at by the police in the charge-sheet as well as in the supplementary charge-sheet filed by it in the FIR No.195/2012. The trial court shall also consider the objections/protest petition if any filed by the applicants or any other interested parties. Stay petition stands disposed of.