Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1016 (RAJ)

Mittan Lal Gwala v. State of Rajasthan

2018-04-16

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.251/2016 registered at Police Station Deoli, District Tonk for offence under Section 409 IPC. 2. This court on 05.03.2018 had passed the following order:- "Counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is alleged in the FIR that the 12 files were in possession of the accused- petitioner and other two co-accused persons. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that a case under Section 409 IPC was registered for misappropriation of the files. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to Annx. 4 to contend that out of the said 12 files, 7 files have been found in the office while verification of the files was being conducted. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that utmost it can be a case of misplacement of the files and not of misappropriation of the files. Issue notice to the respondent. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, Id. PP, accepts notice on behalf of respondent. Two copies of petition have been served upon him. Service is complete. Counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment. List the present petition for arguments on 14.03.2018, as prayed. Name of Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP, be reflected in the cause list as counsel for the respondent. Copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP, under the seal and signature of Court Master for onward transmission and necessary compliance " 3. In pursuance of the said order, Sub-Inspector Duli Chand, SHO, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk, is present in court. He has very fairly submitted that in the entire investigation it has nowhere surfaced that files were entrusted to the petitioner. Investigating Officer has submitted rather it has come in evidence that person incharge of the files prior in time had not handed over the files to the petitioner and no charge was given to the petitioner at the time of posting. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and taken note of the statement made by the Investigating Officer if there is no evidence available with the Investigating Agency that files were entrusted to the petitioner then he cannot be prosecuted for misappropriation thereof. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and taken note of the statement made by the Investigating Officer if there is no evidence available with the Investigating Agency that files were entrusted to the petitioner then he cannot be prosecuted for misappropriation thereof. It is positive case of the Investigating Officer that the charge was not handed over to the petitioner at the time of the posting and files were not handed over, therefore, petitioner cannot be held liable for the mis-appropriation of the files. 5. The impugned FIR being misuse and abuse of process of law is liable to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner is quashed.