Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2875 (RAJ)

Ravi Shankar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-20

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR (CR) No.241/2013 registered at the Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 341 and 323 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The petitioners earlier preferred Misc. Petition Nos.244/2014, 305/2014 and 80/2014 in this Court with almost identical prayers, which were finally decided vide order dated 24.01.2019 directing that the petitioners would submit a representation with the necessary documents to the Investigating Officer, who in turn was directed to consider and decide the same before completing the investigation strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners were given 15 days' protection against arrest and were also given liberty to approach the Court again, in case occasion so arose. In furtherance of this direction, the investigation has been completed and fifteen days' notice has been given to the petitioners apprising them regarding the need of their arrest in the case after a conclusion that the offences are duly proved against them. 3. Learned counsel Shri Ramesh Purohit, representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire case as set out by the first informant in the impugned FIR is false and fabricated. He further urged that the FIR has been lodged after a significant delay. The land in question stands in the name of the petitioner Ravi Shanker in the revenue records. The claim of the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal that Ravi Shanker's father sold the land to him, is absolutely concocted. Shri Purohit further submitted that the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal approached the revenue court for grant of injunction for the very same chunk of land and the prayer so made has been turned down right up to the Board of Revenue. No details of the land (Khasra No. etc.) have been set out in the impugned FIR and thus, there is nothing on the record which can justify continuance of the investigation of the impugned FIR against the petitioners which deserves to be quashed as amounting to an abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. 4. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They contended that the investigating officer has thoroughly investigated the matter and the offences under Sections 447, 427, 341 and 323 IPC and 3 (1), (iv), (v) and (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been found proved against the petitioners, who have been given notice of arrest. The fact that Fateh Lal, the father of Ravi Shanker, sold the land to the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal has been duly verified during investigation. Ravi Shanker took law into his own hands and dispossessed the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal from his own land by use of force and thus, as per them, it is not a case warranting exercise of inherent powers by this Court so as to interfere in the impugned FIR. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. It is apparent from the allegations set out by the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal in the FIR and the material available on record that the accused-petitioners trespassed into his agricultural land, uprooted the trees and hurled caste based abuses at him. He was also beaten. While going away, the accused threatened the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal of dire consequences if he would try to come on the land. The incident took place on 25.09.2013. The respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal got himself medically examined on 26.09.2013 and two injuries were noticed on his body. The respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal alleged that he immediately tried to lodge the report but the police did not cooperate, on which, he was compelled to file a complaint which was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., whereupon, the impugned FIR came to be lodged. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the revenue records, as per which, the Aaraji No.146 is entered in the name of petitioner Ravi Shanker. However, the various papers pertaining to the litigation interse between the parties collected by the Investigating Officer clearly indicate that part of the said land was purchased by the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal who has clearly alleged that the accused persons dispossessed him by use of force. However, the various papers pertaining to the litigation interse between the parties collected by the Investigating Officer clearly indicate that part of the said land was purchased by the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal who has clearly alleged that the accused persons dispossessed him by use of force. The orders of the revenue courts, which have been filed along with the petition by Shri Ramesh Purohit, Advocate representing the petitioners, indicate that the courts refused to pass an injunction against the petitioner Ravi Shanker in an application filed by the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal regarding "A part" of the disputed land. In the application filed before the SDM, the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal claimed possession of 10 Bighas 9 Biswa land from the total land of 29 Bighas of Aaraji No.146. The revenue courts have granted injunction regarding the area of land in possession of the respondent No. Kanhaiya Lal. It is the case of the respondent No.2 Kanhaiya Lal that he has been dispossessed from this chunk of land as well and in the provers, he was beaten and abused. 7. In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that from a careful perusal of the FIR and the surrounding circumstances including the documents placed on record, the necessary ingredients of the offences are clearly made out against the petitioners and hence it is not considered to be a fit case warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court so as to quash the impugned FIR. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case the petitioners are given liberty, if so advised, to surrender before the Special Court, SC/ST Act Cases, Bhilwara in next four weeks and move for bail. Such bail application shall be duly considered and decided as per law on the very same day on which petitioners surrender. 8. The Misc. Petition fails and is rejected as being devoid of merit.