Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2541 (RAJ)

Anita Saini (shah) v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-29

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Misc petition may kindly be allowed and the orders dated 23.6.2010 & 7.6.2011 passed by the learned courts below may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged from the alleged offences. Any other order, which may kindly be deem, fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Briefly put, the facts of this case, as narrated in the petition, are that on 04.03.2009, a complaint came to be filed by the complainant-private respondent, Gurmendra Singh, against Anita Saini (the present petitioner), as well as against Lalit Kumar Saini and Arvind Kumar before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar for the offences under the Sections 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C. Thereafter, the learned trial court, vide the impugned order dated 23.06.2010, took cognizance against the present petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 IPC; the said order was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a revision, which was dismissed by the learned revisional court vide the impugned order dated 07.06.2011. 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, Arvind Kumar, Lalit Kumar Saini and Anita Saini W/o. Lalit Kumar Saini were acquaintances, and that on the pretext of providing a work visa to New Zealand, the three accused persons allegedly took advances from the complainant, for the same, to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-, and subsequently, amount of Rs. 45,000/-, Rs. 11,000/-, Rs. 49,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-, Rs. 49,800/-, Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 49,990/-, in the year 2007, were also sent to the accused persons. And that yet another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, in the year 2008, was collected from the complainant, with the promise that the complainant would soon acquire a work visa for New Zealand. But despite receiving the said sums of money, the complainant did not receive the requisite work visa to travel to New Zealand. And that, the accused persons collected the aforesaid sums of money, totalling Rs. 9,89,790/- on false pretexts, thereby duped the complainant. 4. But despite receiving the said sums of money, the complainant did not receive the requisite work visa to travel to New Zealand. And that, the accused persons collected the aforesaid sums of money, totalling Rs. 9,89,790/- on false pretexts, thereby duped the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below ought to be quashed and set aside, on the ground that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to point towards the culpability of the petitioner, nor was the testimony of the complainant recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that there is a delay in the filing of the complaint, for which no explanation or justification was offered by the complainant. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondent jointly opposed the present petition, and submitted that the impugned orders have been rightly passed by the learned Courts below, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, along with the evidences placed on the record, to the extent necessary at the stage of cognizance. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that at the stage of cognizance, what is required of the concerned Court is to consider whether any prima facie any case, against the accused concerned, is found to be made out or not. A detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence, including delay in lodging of the complaint/FIR, are subject matter of trial. 7. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that the learned Courts below have rightly passed the said orders, after finding a prima facie case against the accused for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., owing to the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned hereinabove. 8. This Court also finds that the learned courts below have duly considered the case, and addressed the contentions made before them, and such due consideration and appreciation as reflected in the reasoned impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, owing to the stage of the case, do not merit any interference by this Court. 9. 8. This Court also finds that the learned courts below have duly considered the case, and addressed the contentions made before them, and such due consideration and appreciation as reflected in the reasoned impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, owing to the stage of the case, do not merit any interference by this Court. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, so as to warrant any interference therein. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.