Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1403 (RAJ)

Sampat Singh v. State, Through PP

2021-08-06

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Sampat Singh alleging that he lodged a complaint for cognizable offences to the police officials of the Police Station Sardarshahar, Churu who did not register the same and thus, they are responsible for violation of Section 31 of the Rajasthan Police Ordinance, 2007. 2. Learned counsel Shri Rajak vehemently and fervently urges that the omission by the police officials of Police Station Sardarshahar in registering the FIR lodged by the petitioner against the accused ASI Rajendra Singh and other police officials of Police Station Sardarshahar is in gross violation of the procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Police Ordinance, 2007. 3. Counsel Shri Rajak further urges that the petitioner filed a complaint of cognizable offences at the Police Station Sardarshahar, Churu. However, ASI Rajendra Singh did not investigate the same properly and sent a report to the police station with false conclusions. The complaint was again sent to Rajendra Singh, ASI for investigation but in fresh investigation, Shri Rajendra Singh totally changed the conclusions arrived at previously. This act/omission of Shri Rajendra Singh, ASI as per the petitioner amounts to an offence under Section 166 (A) & B) of the IPC and hence, the petitioner has prayed that suitable directions be issued to SHO PS Sardarshahar, Churu for registering an FIR against Shri Rajendra Singh. 4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the so-called complaint (Ex.P/1) which the petitioner claims to have filed to the SHO PS Sardarshahar, Churu. On a bare perusal of the complaint, it is apparent that other than making recital of the provisions of law and the judgments rendered by Hon ble the Supreme Court, the petitioner has not made a whisper of allegation that any cognizable offence is made out against the officials of the Police Station Sardarshahar, Churu. 5. Suffice it to say that in the said complaint, absolutely vague and lackadaisical allegations have been made by the petitioner regarding lodging of an FIR/complaint and the alleged illegal acts of Shri Rajendra Singh while investigating the same. Though the petitioner has tried to preach by portraying the provisions of law and judgments, not a whisper is made in the complaint as to what precisely was the complaint submitted by him previously which was not investigated properly. Though the petitioner has tried to preach by portraying the provisions of law and judgments, not a whisper is made in the complaint as to what precisely was the complaint submitted by him previously which was not investigated properly. Be that as it may. On a perusal of the averments of the present complaint, it is clear that no FIR was registered on the allegations of the petitioner previously as well and thus, there was no occasion for any investigation to be carried out. If at all, the petitioner had submitted any complaint and he was not satisfied with the conclusion of inquiry made thereupon, he could have approached the magistrate concerned by filing a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and if at all the Magistrate was satisfied regarding disclosure of offences from the averments, the proceedings under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. could have been resorted to. 6. As a consequence of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that by filing the complaint in question and this misc. petition, the petitioner is trying to manipulate the facts so as to blackmail/pressurize the police officials concerned. This endevour of the petitioner is totally malafide and cannot be tolerated. Hence, I find no reason to interfere in this matter while exercising this Court s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, the misc. petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The stay application is also dismissed.