Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1422 (RAJ)

Vishnu Narain v. State of Rajasthan

2017-06-07

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. Matter came up for hearing before this Special Bench constituted during summer vacations. 2. Petitioner/Complainant preferred this Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 06.06.2002 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 48/2001 (Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. State & Anr.) whereby Learned Lower Revisional Court allowed the Revision petition and quashed the impugned order dated 02.07.2001 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur District, Jaipur in FIR No. 108/99 (FR No. 51/99) Police Station Shivdaspura whereby Learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323 and 341 IPC against accused Bhagwan Sahai Sharma. 3. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant Vishnu Narain submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Shivdaspura stating therein :- ^^fnukad 17-05-1999 dks eSa fo".kqukjk;.k 'kekZ o jkeLo:i jkf= 9 cts viuh thi esa dsu j[kdj chyok iSVªksy iIi ij Mhty ysus tk jgs Fks rks xk;=h efUnj xksusj jksM+ ds ikl igqaps rks vpkud ihNs ls ,d thi vkxs fudydj vkbZ vkSj gekjh thi dk jkLrk jksd fy;k thi esa MªkbZoj ds ikl vkxs cSBs O;fDr us gesa /kedh nsrs gq, thi esa dSjkslhu rsy gksus dk vkjksi yxk;k rFkk vius dks ftyk jln vf/kdkjh o lkfFk;ksa dks v/khuLFk deZpkjh crk;k ,oa ikap gtkj :i;s dh ekax dh geus :i;s nsus ls euk fd;k rks mUgksaus dSuksa dh ryk'kh ysdj [kkyh ik;k tkus ij Mhty j[kus o cspus dk ykbZlsal ekaxk rks geus Hkh muls mudk ifjp; i= eakxk rks os vkos'k esa vk x;s vkSj gekjs lkFk xkyh xykSap o ekjihV djus yxs o gekjs :i;s ywVus dk iz;kl fd;k rHkh lkeus ls fdlh okgu dh ykbZVsa nh[kus ij os rhu O;fDr thi esa lokj gksdj Hkkx fudys rFkk ,d dks geus idM+ fy;kA bl ?kVuk ls ge nksuksa ds xEHkhj pksVsa vkbZA jkeLo:i ds ukd ls [kwu cgus yxk rFkk ilfy;ksa esa nnZ gqvkA fo".kq ds nksuksa dU/kksa ij [kjkSaps vkbZ muds Hkkxus ds ckn geus ml idM+s x, O;fDr dks viuh thi esa cSBkdj Fkkuk f'konkliqjk ds fy, jokuk gks x;sA jkLrsa esa mlls uke&irk iwNus ij Lo;a dk uke ckcwyky jSxj p0Js0deZ0 iapk;r lfefr lkaxkusj crk;k rFkk ekjihV djus okys vf/kdkjh dk uke Hkxoku lgk; 'kekZ crk;k o vU; dk uke ykykjke eh.kk os pkSFks O;fDr dk Hkxoku lgk; dk iq= cryk;kA ge 9 ctdj 25 feuV ij Fkkuk f'konkliqjk gkftj gq, rFkk izkFkfedh fy[kdj nh rFkk ckcwyky dks mifLFkr Fkkuk LVkQ ds lqiqnZ fd;kA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA** 4. On the aforesaid report, FIR No. 108/99 was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation police submitted negative final report against which petitioner/complainant filed protest petition on which Learned Magistrate inquired under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973. During inquiry, petitioner/complainant examined CW-1 Hazari Lal, CW-2 Suji Lal and CW-3 Vishnu Narain. Thereafter Learned Magistrate after hearing, vide order dated 02.07.2001 took cognizance for offence under Section 323 and 341 IPC against accused Bhagwan Sahai which was challenged in Revision petition by accused Bhagwan Sahai. During inquiry, petitioner/complainant examined CW-1 Hazari Lal, CW-2 Suji Lal and CW-3 Vishnu Narain. Thereafter Learned Magistrate after hearing, vide order dated 02.07.2001 took cognizance for offence under Section 323 and 341 IPC against accused Bhagwan Sahai which was challenged in Revision petition by accused Bhagwan Sahai. The Revision petition was allowed vide impugned order dated 06.06.2002 by the Learned Lower Revisional Court i.e. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur and order of Learned Magistrate was quashed and set aside. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.06.2002, petitioner/complainant preferred this Revision Petition before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Mohit Balwada submits that there is sufficient material for taking cognizance against accused Bhagwan Sahai for offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and Learned Magistrate rightly ordered to summon him but without any cogent reason Learned Lower Revisional Court quashed the same, therefore this Revision Petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 06.06.2002 may be quashed and set aside and the order of Learned Magistrate dated 02.07.2001 may be restored. 6. Per Contra Learned PP Mr. SK Saini supported the impugned order and submitted that respondent/accused Bhagwan Sahai was posted as Block Development Officer and at the relevant time since petitioner/complainant was carrying kerosene drums without any licence and the same was checked and licence was demanded on which petitioner/complainant deter him from his duty who was at relevant time working as public servant and petitioner used criminal force on him and provoked him. Not only this he committed theft and abducted one employee for which FIR was lodged against the present petitioner and co-accused in which charge sheet was filed. He submits that as a counter blast petitioner/complainant lodged false FIR against respondent/accused, in which, after investigation, police submitted negative final report. Learned Magistrate without considering the grounds of negative final report, only after considering the statement recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 during inquiry passed impugned order dated 02.07.2001 which was quashed and set aside by the Learned Lower Revisional Court rightly, therefore this Revision Petition may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made at bar. 8. Learned Magistrate without considering the grounds of negative final report, only after considering the statement recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 during inquiry passed impugned order dated 02.07.2001 which was quashed and set aside by the Learned Lower Revisional Court rightly, therefore this Revision Petition may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made at bar. 8. Learned Lower Revisional Court in impugned order observed that :- ^^;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd ifjoknh i{k fo".kqdqekj o jkeLo:i ds fo:) blh ?kVuk ds lUnHkZ esa /kkjk 332] 353] 352] 365] 379 Hkk0na0la0 dk vkjksi i= fnuakd 16-07-1999 dks U;k;ky; dks izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj bl izdj.k esa vfUre izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk mlds i'pkr~ izksVsLV fifV'ku ij tkap dj vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA vfUre izfrosnu bl vk/kkj ij fn;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr dks ifjoknh i{k dh thi esa dsjkslhu dk 'kd gksus ij pSd djus ij ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gSA muds lkFk ekjihV dh diM+s QkM+ fn;s o jkT; dk;Z esa ck/kk igqpakbZA blds foijhr ifjoknh i{k ds lq{e izd`fr dh pksVs vk;h gS tks vfHk;qDr Hkxokulgk; ds chp cpko ds dkj.k vk;h gSA mls dsl dks detksj djus ds fy;s ;g izkFkfedh iathd`r djokbZ x;h gSA** 9. In case where police submitted negative final report, Learned Magistrate while passing order regarding cognizance after inquiry under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 should consider the grounds of negative final report as well as statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 thereafter if any offence is made out then cognizance can be taken. But here in the case in hand, Learned Magistrate without considering the grounds of FIR, passed cognizance order, therefore Learned Lower Revisional Court rightly observed that petitioner/complainant submitted report as counter blast of the case registered against him, for offences under Sections 332, 353, 352, 365 and 379 IPC which doesn't require any interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this Court, therefore this Revision Petition devoids merit which is hereby dismissed.