Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 368 (RAJ)

Kalu v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-01

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petitions for quashing FIR No.627/2015 Hiran Magri Police Station, Udaipur dated 7/12/2015. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 earlier lodged an FIR at Police Station Varda District Dungarpur on 01.11.2015. 3. Petitioners approached the High Court by filing misc. petition No. 3279/2015. The said misc. petition was disposed as report was submitted by learned public prosecutor that police has concluded that the matter is a monetary dispute and is of a civil nature. 4. Respondent also filed a separate FIR on 07.12.2015 at Hiran Magri, Udaipur on similar facts. Police in the present FIR submitted negative final report in February, 2016 after about 10 months, the matter was reopened and petitioners approached the High Court by filing the present misc. petition No.1332/2017 for quashing the proceedings in the FIR raising similar grounds, when police has already submitted negative final report. 5. It is contended that second FIR on similar facts cannot be lodged in a different police station. It is also contended that the continuation of proceedings in the present FIR is nothing but gross abuse of process of Court as when police has once submitted negative final report, there was no justification for reopening the case and directing further investigation. 6. It is also contended by counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioners are the mine owners. There was a dispute with respondent No.2 on which petitioner had filed civil suit and had also complained to the Superintendent of Police. In order to harass. The petitioner complainant has filed similar FIR at Verda Police Station, District Udaipur and Hiran Magri Police Station, District Udaipur. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has contended that police has all the rights to re-investigate a case. It is also contended that police in the present case has come to the conclusion that offence is made out against the present petitioner. 8. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the company that all marble which has been mined would be sold to the company and when petitioner started selling the marble in open market, company had filed the present FIR as the mine was already transferred in the name of company. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the company that all marble which has been mined would be sold to the company and when petitioner started selling the marble in open market, company had filed the present FIR as the mine was already transferred in the name of company. It is also contended that the mining lease has been issued in the name of company. 9. I have considered the contention. 10. Apparently, the dispute is of a civil nature as initially the mining lease was granted in favour of petitioner Kalu. Kalu transferred the mine to the company. The order of transfer of lease was canceled against which the writ petition was filed. Kalu thereafter agreed to sell the marble to the company and if he has committed breach, civil remedy is available. 11. Be that as it may, the fact is that the respondents had earlier filed FIR at Verda Police Station, Dungarpur and when petitioners approached the High Court for quashing of FIR, police submitted a report that the matter is of a civil nature and subsequently, the misc. petition No. 3279/2015 was disposed. 12. In the other FIR filed at Hiran Magri Police Station, District Udaipur, police initially submitted negative final report and at the behest of senior officer, the matter was reopened and when the police proceeded with investigation in the second FIR, petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present misc. petition. 13. I am of the considered view that once the police has submitted negative final report, the course available to the complainant was to file a protest petition before the concerned Court rather than proceeding with another FIR on similar facts. Police having submitted Negative Final Report in the earlier F.I.R. and negative final report in the present case as well erred in reinvestigating the case. After submission of negative final report in earlier F.I.R. and present F.I.R. permitting the Police to proceed in the present F.I.R. would tantamount to abuse of process of Court. 14. Hence, the misc. petition is allowed. FIR No. 627/2015 is quashed. 15. Stay application stands disposed.