Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 49 (RAJ)

Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this petition under section 482 CrPC, 1973 the petitioner Dalpat Singh has approached this court for challenging the order dated 09.11.2011 passed by learned ACJM, Sojat in private complaint No.4/2006, whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner as well as co-accused Kailash Singh (both being Constables posted at the Police Station Sojat Road) for the offences under Sections 330 and 342 IPC so also the order dated 25.06.2014 passed by ASJ, Sojat in revision affirming the staid order passed by the learned Magistrate. 2. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kumbhat has placed on record a copy of the order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the predecessor in office holding charge of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Revision No.9/2012 filed by the co-accused Kailash Singh, Constable, whose case stands on identical footing with that of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kumbhat has placed on record a copy of the order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the predecessor in office holding charge of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Revision No.9/2012 filed by the co-accused Kailash Singh, Constable, whose case stands on identical footing with that of the petitioner. The conclusions recorded by the revisional court at para No.11 of the said order are as below :- ^^11 & tgka rd fuxjkuhdrkZ dks /kkjk 197 n0Á0la0 dh lqj{kk ÁkIr gksus dk lEcU/k gS] ;g ,d dkuwuh fcUnq gS] ftlds ckjs esa dkuwu dh fLFkfr Li"V gS vkSj fuxjkuhdrkZ ,d flikgh ds in ij dk;Zjr gS] tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu;qDr yksd lsod ugha gS vkSj blfy, blds lEcU/k esa ;g cpko dkuwuh egRo ugha j[krk gSA burk gksus ds ckotwn Hkh vxj ge fuxjkuhdrkZ ds f[kykQ ftu /kkjkvksa esa ÁlaKku fy;k x;k gS] muds lEcU/k esa fopkj djrs gSa rks fuf'pr gh] buds lEcU/k esa fy;k x;k mDr ÁlaKku vkns'k vk/kkj ghu ik;k tkrk gSA tSlk fd ;gka fuxjkuhdrkZ vkSj nwljs iqfyl dfeZ;ksa ds f[kykQ fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us nks /kkjkvksa esa ÁlaKku fy;k gS ftuesa /kkjk 342] 330 Hkk0na0la0 'kkfey gSA tgka rd /kkjk 342 Hkk0na0la0 dk lEcU/k gS vxj ifjoknh ÁR;FkhZ la[;k nks dks lnks"k ifjjks/k esa j[kk tkuk lkfcr Hkh gks tkrk gS] rks Hkh blds fy, Fkkuk vf/kdkjh ds vykok mlds ekrgr flikgh vkfn ftEesnkj ugha ekus tk ldrs] D;ksafd bl rjg dk fu.kZ; ,d ,l0,p0vks0 }kjk gh fy;k tk ldrk gS] nwljs] v/khuLFk deZpkjh dks Hkys gh mlds vkns'kksa ds rgr fdlh lafnX/k dks ;k fdlh nwljs O;fDr dks Fkkus esa cqykdj ykus dk dk;Z rks djrs gSa] ij bl rjg ls ekrgrksa }kjk Fkkus esa ,l0,p0vks0 ds vkns'k ds rgr ftl fdlh O;fDr dks yk;k tk ldrk gS] fQj vkxs mldks lnks"k ifjjks/k esa j[kk tkrk gS rks ;g iw.kZr;k lh/ks&lh/ks ,l0,p0vks0 ds vkns'kksa ds rgr gh gksrk gS] ftlds fy, og vdsyk gh ftEesnkj gksrk gSA** 4. Considering the fact that there is no difference whatsoever in the case of the present petitioners and that of Kailash Singh and as his revision against the order taking cognizance dated 09.11.2011 was allowed and proceedings being taken against him in the same case were quashed, this court is of the firm opinion that the presiding officer, who rejected the revision filed by the petitioner, acted with gross judicial indiscipline while ignoring the order passed in the same matter by the predecessor holding charge of the same court and has thereby created an unnecessary anomalous situation. 5. In view of the above discussion, the instant miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.11.2011 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 330 and 342 IPC passed by ACJM, Sojat and dated 25.06.2014 passed by ASJ, Sojat and all proceedings sought to be taken there under against the petitioner are hereby quashed.