Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1531 (RAJ)

Manoj v. State of Rajasthan, Through P. P.

2018-07-19

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No.9699/2017 titled State vs. Manoj, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.30, Jaipur Metropolitan. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner on 20.9.2015 lodged the FIR No.390/2015 registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur for the of offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that during investigation both the parties affected compromise and the dispute between both the parties was amicably settled. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application before the investigating officer that he no longer intends to pursue the FIR. Resultantly, the investigating officer submitted the Final Report (Annexure-2) in negative form. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that after the aforesaid Final Report was submitted, SHO, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur submitted a complaint under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner and the said complaint was presented before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.30, Jaipur Metropolitan. The said court vide order dated 10.4.2017 took cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence under Section 211 IPC fall under section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., 1973 and qua this offence only complaint in writing could be filed by the court and SHO could not lodge the report. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence if any will fall under Section 182 IPC and not under Section 211 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that for offence under Section 182 IPC, accused can be convicted to maximum sentence of six months. It is further submitted that as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973 period of limitation to prosecute the petitioner for offence under Section 182 IPC has already expired. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that only qua offence under Section 182 IPC complaint could be filed by SHO, as public servant, but the complaint qua offence under Section 211 IPC because of bar prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973 could only be filed by the concerned court. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that only qua offence under Section 182 IPC complaint could be filed by SHO, as public servant, but the complaint qua offence under Section 211 IPC because of bar prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973 could only be filed by the concerned court. 6. I find merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Qua offence under Section 211 IPC, complaint could only be filed by the court which had accepted the Final Report in negative form. After acceptance of Final Report in respect of FIR No. 390/2015, registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 379, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, complaint could only be filed by the concerned court. SHO/investigating officer could only file complaint against the petitioner for offence under Sections 182 IPC but as already noted above, the period of limitation for prosecution of petitioner for offence under Section 182 IPC has already expired. 8. It is to be noted that the Final Report in negative form qua FIR lodged by the petitioner was accepted on 20.11.2015, therefore, the petitioner even now cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 182 IPC because period of limitation to prosecute the petitioner has already expired. 9. Since, qua offence under Section 211 IPC complaint has not been filed by the concerned court and same cannot be initiated by the concerned SHO, the present petition is accepted and the proceedings under Section 211 IPC in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.30, Jaipur Metropolitan along with order of cognizance are set aside.