Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2817 (RAJ)

Chandra Pal v. State of Rajasthan

2022-11-24

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Criminal Revision Petition No.1232/2018 has been preferred against the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh (in F.R. No.185/2018 (Registered No.96/2017) arising out of FIR No.373/2016 registered at Police Station, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Court below took cognizance against the petitioners No.1 to 3 for the offences under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(F)(G) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and; against petitioners No. 4 to 9 under Section 447 IPC. 1.1 Criminal Revision Petition No.1229/2018 has been preferred against the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh (in F.R. No.196/2016 (Registered No.97/2017) arising out of FIR No.595/2016 registered at Police Station, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Court below took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(g) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. As per the pleaded facts and the record of the case (in Petition No.1232/2018), the respondent No.2/complainant-Malkit Singh filed a complaint alleging therein that on 02.07.2016 (10:00 p.m.), the accused persons arrived at the place where the land of the complainant was situated and constructed a room on the said land. On 04.07.2016 (08:00 p.m.), the accused persons, armed with lathi and gandasi, again came to the said land belonging to the complainant, and started hurling caste-based abuses against the respondent No.2/complainant; the accused persons also caused damages to the tractor of the complainant lying at the place of the incident. 2.1 On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was lodged and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, a negative report was filed before the concerned Court. 2.2 However, the learned trial Court, vide the impugned order, declined to accept the said negative final report and took cognizance against the petitioners under the aforementioned provisions of law. 3. As the pleaded facts and the record (in Petition No.1229/2018) would reveal, the respondent No.2/complainant-Malkit Singh filed a complaint alleging therein that on 11.10.2016 (around 10:30 p.m. - 11:00 p.m.), the accused persons, on a motorcycle, arrived at the dhani of the respondent No.2/complainant, and started hurling caste-based abuses against him; the accused persons, however, upon seeing the family members of the complainant, fled the place of incident, while leaving behind their motorcycle. 3.1 On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was lodged and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, a negative report was filed before the concerned Court. 3.2 However, the learned trial Court, vide the impugned order, declined to accept the said negative final report and took cognizance against the petitioners under the aforementioned provisions of law. 4. Furthermore, the record of both the instant petitions as well as the impugned orders of cognizance passed by the learned Court below reveal that there was a dispute, in respect of a land, subsisting between the parties; the said land, earlier was allotted in favour of one Gurmeet Singh & others, and the said allotment upon being lawfully cancelled, was allotted to the present complainant (respondent No.2) 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present criminal proceedings against the present petitioners have been launched by the respondent No.2/complainant, on false pretext, and thus, the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 5.1 Learned counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the record as well as the impugned orders clearly shows that in regard to the alleged incident in question, Gurmeet Singh lodged an FIR against the present complainant/respondent No.2, and after due investigation, the offence was found to be made out against the present complainant himself. 5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the police, after conclusion of the investigation into the FIRs lodged by the complainant herein, against the present petitioners, filed the negative final report(s), while considering all the relevant aspects. 5.3 Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned Court below, had passed the impugned orders, without taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record before it. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, while supporting the impugned orders of cognizance. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court finds that at the stage of cognizance, what is required of the concerned Court is to consider whether any prima facie case is found to be made out or not. A detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence, in the present case, are subject matter of trial. 9. 8. This Court finds that at the stage of cognizance, what is required of the concerned Court is to consider whether any prima facie case is found to be made out or not. A detailed analysis and appreciation of the evidence, in the present case, are subject matter of trial. 9. This Court also finds that the learned Court below has duly considered the case, and such due consideration and appreciation owing to the stage of the case, is reflected in the well reasoned impugned orders passed by the learned Court below, and therefore, the same do not merit any interference by this Court. 10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Court below, so as to warrant any interference therein. 11. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.