Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 644 (RAJ)

Devilal Jyani v. State of Rajasthan through PP

2021-03-18

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner Devilal Jyani has approached this Court by way of the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 166-A and 120-B of the IPC against a police officer named Satyendra Pal Singh and three private persons and also to direct that the CBI or any other independent investigating agency should investigate the FIR. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant misc. petition are noted hereinbelow: An FIR No. 67/2016 came to be lodged by one Sohan Lal at the Police Station Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 427, 458, 323, 354, 376, 511 & 143 IPC and Sections 3(1)(xi) & 3(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The investigation of the said FIR was assigned to Shri Satyendra Pal Singh, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB), Range Cell, District Bikaner who conducted thorough investigation and filed the result thereof (Negative Final Report No. 90A dated 03.07.2018) in the court concerned. It may be stated here that the petitioner herein is totally unconnected with the aforesaid Shri Sohanlal, yet he filed a complaint against Sayendra Pal Singh, Ravindra Gupta, Dhanraj, Shamsher Ali and few unknown persons alleging that by not investigating the matter in correct perspective and as per law, Shri Satyendra Pal Singh committed the cognizable offence under Section 166-A of the IPC and that the negative final report was filed in connivance with the accused persons. The petitioner claims that the SHO PS Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner did not register an FIR on his complaint despite the fact that he disclosed necessary ingredients of cognizable offences whereafter, he was compelled to file a complaint to this effect in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner, but the petitioner has not been able to get the desired result and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate is simply adjourning the matter for calling a report from the police. As per the petitioner, the learned Magistrate is under an obligation either to forward the report to the police station concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed with it as a complaint. Chief Judicial Magistrate is simply adjourning the matter for calling a report from the police. As per the petitioner, the learned Magistrate is under an obligation either to forward the report to the police station concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or to proceed with it as a complaint. Shri Rajak, learned counsel representing the petitioner fervently and vehemently contended that non-registration of the FIR by the police officials and hesitation shown by the trial court in not taking appropriate action on the complaint of the petitioner is totally illegal and amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 4. A pertinent query was put to Shri Rajak regarding the locus standi of the petitioner in filing the complaint aforestated with the grievance that the FIR (No. 67/2016) lodged by Shri Sohan Lal was not investigated as per law. Shri Rajak could not respond to this pertinent query of this Court. Manifestly, a grave suspicion is cast on the motive of the petitioner in filing the complaint aforestated and in trying to procure an order of this Court for registration of FIR/investigation by the CBI. 5. The petitioner claims that the Investigating Officer Shri Satyendra Pal Singh's duty was only to carry forward the investigation from the stage he has received the file but he violated the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali : (2013), 5 SCC Page Blank. As per the petitioner, Shri Satyendra Pal Singh infringed the mandate of law and undertook re-investigation by exceeding his powers. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 2 the complainant Ravindra Gupta alleged in the FIR No. 244/2015, Police Station JNV Colony, Bikaner that when he reached the spot, Sohan Lal and his wife were inside the house. Despite this fact, Satyendra Pal Singh investigated the case in a biased and illegal manner so as to give undue advantage to Ravindra Gupta, Dhanraj, Shamsher Ali, and various other persons. 6. In addition thereto, the petitioner has levelled various far-fetched and irrelevant allegations regarding fabrication of the documents by Ravindra Gupta before different fora. Primary target of the petitioner seems to be Ravindra Gupta. The petitioner claims that by not investigating the matter as per the mandate of law, the police officer is responsible for offence under Section 166-A of the IPC. Primary target of the petitioner seems to be Ravindra Gupta. The petitioner claims that by not investigating the matter as per the mandate of law, the police officer is responsible for offence under Section 166-A of the IPC. The petitioner has even gone to the extent of making a calculated pre-emptive attempt to seek prosecution of the police officer by claiming in the complaint, that the offence under Section 166-A IPC does not require any prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and thus, the complaint should be forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering an FIR for a cognizable offence. 7. It may be stated here that the petitioner has not shown any relationship whatsoever with Sohan Lal, the complainant of the FIR no. 67/2016. The entire thrust of allegations as reflected in the complaint is that investigation of the said FIR was not conducted as per law. 8. Be that as it may. After going through the contents of the complaint of the petitioner, I am duly satisfied that prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 166-A IPC are not made out therefrom because the entire body of the complaint does not indicate as to which provision, mandate or direction of law, the investigating officer flouted or violated while conducting investigation of FIR No. 67/2016. 9. I am duly satisfied that the impugned complaint of the petitioner on the face of it does not disclose necessary ingredients of a cognizable offence, what to say of any offence whatsoever. The allegations set out therein are malicious and are aimed at settling personal vendetta and nothing beyond that. It may be stated here that the Final Report filed after investigation of the FIR No. 67/2016 lodged by Sohan Lal is reportedly pending before the Special Judge concerned. Allowing the instant complaint to be proceeded, may lead to an absolutely analogous and absurd situation because it is quite possible that the Special Judge who is an officer of District Judge cadre may accept the Final Report by concurring with the finding of the IO but at the same time, the procedure of investigation would continue to be challenged in the frivolous complaint of the petitioner. 10. 10. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as available on record, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi in the case and he has filed the complaint in question before the court concerned purely for oblique motives and to wreak vengeance and allowing prosecution thereof would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law. The very fact that the petitioner has arraigned private persons with the police official Shri Satyendra Pal Singh as accused in the complaint indicates his vindictive and malicious approach. He has wasted the valuable time of the trial court for a significant period of more than one year. When he failed to get success in his nefarious design, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this frivolous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which ex-facie does not disclose a valid cause of action to the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that the complaint (Presentation No. 13829/19) submitted in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner by the petitioner on 05.12.2019 is frivolous and malafide and that the same does not disclose the necessary ingredients of any offence whatsoever what to talk of a cognizable offence and thus, the same is hereby quashed. 11. The litigants such as the petitioner are like parasites infesting the judicial system and their transgressions have to be repelled with strong hands. 12. As an upshot of the above discussion, the instant criminal misc. petition is dismissed while imposing cost to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner. Cost upon being realized shall be appropriated in the funds of the District Legal Service Authority, Bikaner. 13. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the District Collector, Bikaner who shall take steps for recovering the cost from the petitioner as per law. A copy of this order shall also be transmitted to the trial court.