Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2260 (RAJ)

Goverdhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2022-08-17

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
ORDER 1. On 19.07.2022, this Court had passed the following order:- "1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction with a grievance that the Investigating Officer has obtained production warrant for his custody in relation to FIR No.99/2011, registered at Police Station Sadar Bikaner, District Bikaner. 2. While highlighting that multiple FIRs were registered against the petitioner and negative Final Report had been filed, learned counsel submits that the state machinery has suddenly sprung into action vindictively and similar applications are likely to be filed by the Investigating Officer in other FIRs, in which leave/permission of conducting further investigation have been obtained. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Bikaner is directed to file a reply categorically indicating therein as to whether the police intends to carry out further investigation in relation to other FIRs lodged against the petitioner in which Final Reports have been filed and if yes, whether they need custodial investigation/production warrant? 4. List this case on 25.07.2022. 5. Till then, any production warrant, qua the petitioner shall not be given effect to" 2. In furtherance of the directions given by this Court on 19.07.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner has filed an additional affidavit, inter-alia, stating that as of today investigation in relation to following FIRs is to be made: "(i). FIR No.44/2010, registered at Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 384, 500, 501, 506 & 201 of IPC. (ii). FIR No.99/2011, registered at Police Station - Sadar, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. (iii). FIR No.182/2022, registered at Police Station - Sadar, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 196, 198 & 200 of IPC and Section 3 of the Arms Act. (iv). FIR No.24/2010, registered at Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner. Offence under Section 384 IPC. (v). FIR No.39/2010, registered at Police Station Kotgate, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 384, 415, 416, 417, 419, 504, 353, 489D, 292, 119, 120B & 192 IPC and 4/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. (vi). FIR No.387/2014, registered at Police Station Sadar Bikaner. Offences under Sections 341 & 323 IPC." 3. It is stated that out of above FIRs the Investigating Officer needs petitioner’s custodial interrogation for five days each in relation to FIR No.99/2011, registered at P.S. Sadar Bikaner, District Bikaner and the FIR No.44/2010, registered at P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner. 4. Mr. (vi). FIR No.387/2014, registered at Police Station Sadar Bikaner. Offences under Sections 341 & 323 IPC." 3. It is stated that out of above FIRs the Investigating Officer needs petitioner’s custodial interrogation for five days each in relation to FIR No.99/2011, registered at P.S. Sadar Bikaner, District Bikaner and the FIR No.44/2010, registered at P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner. 4. Mr. Devendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the contents of the FIR and argued that so far as FIR No.99/2011, P.S. Sadar Bikaner is concerned, the only allegation levelled is, that the petitioner had earlier filed an RTI application under his name and signatures and when he was asked to deposit requisite fee for providing copies under the Right to Information Act, he moved another application in the name of one Bhanwar Singh - a person hailing from Below Poverty Line (BPL) category. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate and give sample/specimen of his handwriting and signatures and hence his custody is not needed for such purpose. 6. He submitted that FIR No.44/2010, registered at P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner involves the allegation that the petitioner had filed as many as 88 complaints in various Departments against the complainant. While maintaining that the petitioner had not sent those letters/complaints, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if assertion of the complainant is taken to be correct, his custodial interrogation is not required as no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner. 7. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the respondent State submitted that the Superintendent of Police has thoroughly examined the matter and has found that out of the above referred six FIRs, petitioner’s custodial interrogation of five days (each) in two FIRs is necessary. He submitted that unearthing of evidence and exploring facts is not possible in a short span of time particularly in the case of petitioner, in a bid to justify State’s claim of total 10 days’ custodial interrogation. 8. Heard rival counsel and perused the material available on record. 9. The allegations of the prosecution in the FIR No.99/2021 against the petitioner is that both the applications under RTI Act were filed by him. 10. 8. Heard rival counsel and perused the material available on record. 9. The allegations of the prosecution in the FIR No.99/2021 against the petitioner is that both the applications under RTI Act were filed by him. 10. In the opinion of this Court, in this case, no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and the Investigating Officer at the best may require a sample of petitioner’s handwriting and signatures. 11. So far as State’s plea of five days’ custodial interrogation in relation to FIR No.99/2011 is concerned, this Court is of the view that in order to complete investigation, the State is in requirement of petitioner’s handwriting and signatures, which the petitioner is, in any case, ready and willing to give. Therefore, his custodial interrogation and investigation is not necessary in this FIR. 12. Adverting to the State’s plea of petitioner’s custodial interrogation in relation to FIR No.44/2010, this Court is of the view that since the complainant has levelled allegation against the petitioner of having sent 88 letters to various Departments, not only in order to tarnish his image but also in order to extract illegal money (extortion), this Court is of the view that the State’s request for petitioner’s custodial interrogation is reasonable and legit. But for that, five days’ custody is a bit too long. 13. The present petition is, therefore, disposed of in terms that *xxxx the State will have total three days’ custodial interrogation of the petitioner in relation to FIR No.44/2010. He shall not be arrested in relation to investigation of any other FIR mentioned in para No.2 above. 14. It will be open for the State to have petitioner’s specimen signatures and sample of handwriting in relation to FIR No.99/2011, while he is in 3 days’ custody pursuant to order instant. 15. With these observations, misc. petition stands disposed of. 16. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.