Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2184 (RAJ)

Hari Kishan v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-14

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. 1. Accused-petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 04.07.2013 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur whereby she took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 354 IPC. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the incident took place on 07.12.2011 when the complainant was putting live wires to transmit electric current on the poles of his field. An objection was raised by one of the accused-petitioners whereupon a dispute started, many persons sustained injuries for which FIR was lodged on the same day. It is contended that after lapse of two months complainant filed a complaint before the Court, which was sent for registration of FIR and FIR was registered on 20.02.2012. It is contended that in the FIR filed on behalf of the petitioners-side complainant and other persons have been convicted and have been given benefit of probation. 3. It is contended that police after due investigation submitted negative final report. Court on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance. The Court has not considered the negative final report and has not given any reason why it is disagreeing with the negative final report. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006 (2) RCC 853). 5. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the criminal misc. petition. It is contended that petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision. A second revision is barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. 6. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Jai Kishan Khandelwal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. 1668/2007) decided on 31.01.2011. 7. I have considered the contentions and have perused the negative final report. 8. The date of incident was 07.12.2011, complaint was filed after two months on 07.02.2012. Police has come to the conclusion that the injuries were sustained by petitioner No. 5 and after challan was filed in the FIR lodged by petitioner-party, to counter blast the same, complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of two months. 8. The date of incident was 07.12.2011, complaint was filed after two months on 07.02.2012. Police has come to the conclusion that the injuries were sustained by petitioner No. 5 and after challan was filed in the FIR lodged by petitioner-party, to counter blast the same, complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of two months. It is pertinent to note that the incident took place when the complainant-party were putting electric wires in their field, an objection was raised on behalf of the accused-party on which they were subjected to beating on which FIR was lodged on the same day by the petitioners-party and the complainant-party were charge-sheeted and ultimately convicted by the Court and have also given benefit of probation. The court below has not discussed the negative final report and has not assigned any reason why it has disbelieved the negative final report. 9. In Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal (supra) High Court has held that if a protest petition is allowed, Courts are required to discuss the negative final report and assigned reason why it is disagreeing with the negative final report. 10. It is true that second revision is barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and in exceptional cases Court can invoke its inherent powers and tantamounts to abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice. 11. Present is the case where complainant-party stands convicted and the complaint was filed after they were charge-sheeted, as a means to counter-blast the FIR lodged by the petitioners. The delay in lodging the complaint is not explained by the complainant. The dispute took place on the spur of moment and complainant-party have been convicted and given benefit of probation. Police after due investigation has submitted negative final report. Court without assigning any reasons for discarding the negative final report has proceeded against the petitioners after a lapse of eight years. The proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of Court and cause grave injustice to the petitioners. 12. In view of the same, criminal misc. petition is allowed and proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 245/2013 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur are quashed. Stay application also stands disposed.