Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1726 (RAJ)

Naresh Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-01

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. Matter came upon I.A. No. 19806/2016 for taking on record the order sheets of the Learned Trial Court. 2. Heard. 3. Considering the facts mentioned in the application and arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, the application is allowed and order sheets submitted alongwith application are taken on record. 4. This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by complainant/petitioner Naresh Singhal for directing the Learned Trial Court i.e. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar to take off the record, the application/objections dated 17.09.2016, filed by the accused, at pre-cognizance stage and also prayed to direct the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar to proceed, hear and decide the matter on merits at an early date. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar on 03.12.2004 and the same was sent to Police Station Kotwali, Alwar in terms of section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR, on which FIR No. 678/2004 under Sections 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC was registered on 03.12.2004 and investigation commenced. After investigation police submitted negative final report in the matter and opined that it is a matter of civil dispute. 6. Thereafter complainant/petitioner filed protest petition which was dismissed and the negative final report was accepted by the Learned Magistrate against which Revision Petition was filed by the complainant/petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 16.09.2008 and the matter was remanded back to Learned Magistrate, thereafter Learned Magistrate after hearing took cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 and 120-B IPC vide order dated 21.08.2014 and bailable warrants was issued for summoning the accused persons. 7. The accused persons challenged the cognizance order dated 21.08.2014 in Revision Petition before Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar. The said Revision Petition was dismissed and the cognizance order dated 21.04.2014 passed by Learned Magistrate was upheld by the Revisional Court. 8. Thereafter accused persons filed Criminal Misc. 7. The accused persons challenged the cognizance order dated 21.08.2014 in Revision Petition before Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar. The said Revision Petition was dismissed and the cognizance order dated 21.04.2014 passed by Learned Magistrate was upheld by the Revisional Court. 8. Thereafter accused persons filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 918/2015 and 919/2015 before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same was decided vide order dated 29.06.2015 by Coordinate Bench of this Court who set aside the orders dated 21.08.2014 and 31.01.2015, being the orders of cognizance and dismissal of revision petition respectively and it was directed that matter be further investigated by the investigating agency, P.S. City Kotwali, Alwar on seven points mentioned in the order dated 29.06.2015. 9. After investigation, in pursuance of order of Coordinate Bench of this Court Investigating Officer filed report before the Trial Court on 27.08.2016. After filing the aforesaid investigation report by the investigating agency, the matter was kept for further proceedings and deferred for 17.09.2016. On that date one of the accused Mr. Prem Puri filed an objection application before the Learned Trial Court and inspite of objections of the petitioner/complainant, the same was taken on record by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar and since then matter is pending before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. 10. He submits that before taking cognizance accused has no right to participate in proceedings pending before Magistrate or file any application, without considering this fact Learned Magistrate entertained the application and matter is being adjourned repeatedly, therefore Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar may be directed to take off the said application of accused and pass appropriate order as per law considering the report of Investigating Officer after hearing the petitioner. 11. Learned PP Mr. Rajendra Raghav also submits that before cognizance accused has no right to address Court or participate in proceedings. He also supported the submissions made by Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia. 12. Since matter is under enquiry before the Magistrate, therefore I deem it proper not to issue notice to accused persons of this Misc. Petition. Since before taking cognizance accused has no right to participate in the proceedings pending before Magistrate and this Misc. Petition is filed only in regard to application submitted by accused persons before the Magistrate before passing any cognizance order. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabha Mathur & Anr. Vs. Petition. Since before taking cognizance accused has no right to participate in the proceedings pending before Magistrate and this Misc. Petition is filed only in regard to application submitted by accused persons before the Magistrate before passing any cognizance order. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabha Mathur & Anr. Vs. Pramod Aggarwal & Ors. reported in 2008 (9) SCC 469 observed that:- "It is no doubt true, as held by this Court in Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa, (1976) 3 SCC 736 and reiterated in several other cases that the accused has no locus standi at the stage of investigation and he cannot insist for hearing before process is issued against him. It was also held in Chandru Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr., (1964) 1 SCR 639 and in Shashi Jena & Ors. Vs. Khadal Swain & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 236 that at the most, an accused may remain present with a view to be informed as to what is going on and nothing more. It is equally correct that if a person has no locus standi or right of hearing, such right does not accrue in his favour by an indirect process." 14. The same view was taken by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5402 of 2016 decided on 21.10.2016. 15. In view of it, the Misc. Petition is allowed and Learned Court below is directed to take off the record, the application/objections dated 17.09.2016, filed by the accused, at pre-cognizance stage and pass appropriate order according to law on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer.