Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2954 (RAJ)

Rajendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-12-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant leave to appeal application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant complainant Rajendra Kumar seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 07.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.62A/2009 (55/2008) whereby, the respondent No.2 Lalit Kumar was acquitted from the accusation under Section 500 of the IPC. 2. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel Shri Rajendra Soni representing the complainant applicant Rajendra Kumar; Shri Anil Mehta, Advocate representing the respondent (acquitted accused) and the learned Public (2 of 3) [CRLLA-62/2014. Prosecutor, and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the original record. 3. The applicant filed the complaint against Lalit Kumar alleging inter alia that he lodged an FIR No.473/2006 against the complainant at the Police Station Nohar for the offences under Sections 453, 380 and 427 IPC with totally false allegations. The police gave a negative Final Report in the matter and the accused got the same accepted having realised that the allegations levelled by him in the FIR were totally false. Even, while the investigation of the FIR was underway, the accused, conveyed all and sundry i.e. to numerous persons including Mohd. Adrish and others that Rajendra Soni had broken the kotha of Lalit Bhatnagar. Thus, as per the complainant, the accused indulged in raising false propaganda against the complainant thereby defaming him. After evidence had been completed in the trial, the complainant's submission before the trial court was that the false FIR was lodged by the accused to defame the complainant. The accused got the FR accepted voluntarily which shows his mens rea and thus, he should be convicted for the charge of defamation. 4. The plea of the defence before the trial court was that the FIR was lodged with true allegations. During investigation, the Bar Association, Nohar intervened and when, the complainant regained the possession of his kotha and his goods, he was persuaded by the Bar Association Nohar to get the FR accepted. The trial court, took note of the fact that the Bar Association Nohar convened a meeting and thus, intervened in the matter for getting the key of the room in question handed over to Lalit Kumar. The FR was got accepted in view of this development. The trial court, took note of the fact that the Bar Association Nohar convened a meeting and thus, intervened in the matter for getting the key of the room in question handed over to Lalit Kumar. The FR was got accepted in view of this development. Even in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant Rajendra Soni (Ex.D/1), he admitted that he and Lalit Kumar were at loggerheads owing to the possession of the room in question and that he was ready to return the key thereof to Lalit Kumar before the Bar Members. On these terms, the matter was settled between the parties. A litigation under the Rent Control Act was instituted between Rajendra Soni and Lalit Kumar. In this background, the trial court held that there was no reason to believe that the FIR No.473/2006 was lodged by Lalit Kumar on false allegations. 5. Thus, considering the observations made by the trial court and the findings recorded by it in the impugned judgment while acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 500 IPC to be based on apropos appreciation of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to interfere therein. As the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, there is no reason to grant leave to the complainant appellant for filing an appeal there against. 6. In view of the discussion made herein above, the instant application for grant of leave to file an appeal is rejected as being devoid of merit. 7. Record be returned to the trial court.