Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 814 (RAJ)

Dayal Moolchandani v. State of Rajasthan

2022-03-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused petitioner Dayal Mulchandani with a prayer to quash FIR No. 413/2017, registered at the Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 and 354 IPC. 2. The FIR in question came to be lodged by the respondent No. 2 complainant Smt. Meena Soni with an allegation that she owns the Plot No. 276 situated at Block 3 & 4, Shiv Road, Keshar Bagh, Ratanada, Jodhpur on which, she and her husband Ghanshyam Soni carry on a business in the name and style of BST Brass & Silver. The house of Arun Kumar Soni is situated next to her house. Adjacent to the house of Arun Kumar Soni, there is an empty plot of Sunil Soni who is the cousin brother of the complainant. Adjacent to this empty plot of Sunil Soni, the petitioner Dayal Moolchandani owns a shop and a house in the name of Chandra Crockery. The complainant claims that she was taking care of Sunil Soni's plot for a long period of time. The accused petitioner Dayal Moolchandani was trying to encroach upon the said plot. Her neighbour Arun Kumar Soni was constructing a house on his plot and his raw material was lying in the plot of Sunil Soni. On 21.11.2017 at about 7.00 pm, the complainant, alongwith her husband Ghanshyam Soni proceeded towards their house at which point of time, they saw the petitioner Dayal Moolchandani and his employee Naveen Mishra raising a ruckus outside the plot of Sunil Soni. They were vociferating loudly as to how the raw material had been placed in the said plot and demanded for its removal. The complainant and her husband went there and tried to stop Dayal Moolchandani and Naveen Mishra and requested them not to hurl abuses which further angered them and they started beating the complainant's husband. She tried to intervene on which, she was also slapped and punched. In the ongoing scuffle, the petitioner caught hold of her blouse, which got torn. On the basis of this report, an FIR for the above offences came to be registered at the Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur and the investigation is being carried out. 3. She tried to intervene on which, she was also slapped and punched. In the ongoing scuffle, the petitioner caught hold of her blouse, which got torn. On the basis of this report, an FIR for the above offences came to be registered at the Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur and the investigation is being carried out. 3. By order dated 19.09.2018, this Court had restrained filing of the charge-sheet in the matter and the said interim order is continuing till date. 4. Shri Laxman Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that as a matter of fact, the petitioner is in possession of the plot in question and has constructed a godown thereupon. The complainant is a busybody and has nothing to do with the plot. The petitioner had filed a suit under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act for the disputed plot in question and being enraged thereby and in order to counterblast the proceeding of the suit, the instant FIR came to be lodged. The Rent Control Tribunal passed an interim stay on 04.12.2017 and just two days later, the FIR came to be lodged wherein, the factum of the stay order has been concealed. He thus urges that the impugned FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law. Shri Bishnoi also submitted that the FIR is highly belated and hence also the same deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that the Investigating Officer has prima facie found the offences alleged to be proved after concluding the investigation and as such, this Court should refrain from interfering in the impugned FIR by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. As per the police diary, the complainant submitted the complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur on 29.11.2017 and on his direction, the same was forwarded to the police for investigation and whereupon, the FIR came to be registered at the Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur. Hence, the contention of Shri Bishnoi that the FIR has been filed as a counterblast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner Dayal Moolchandani in Rent Control Tribunal is bereft of merit. Hence, the contention of Shri Bishnoi that the FIR has been filed as a counterblast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner Dayal Moolchandani in Rent Control Tribunal is bereft of merit. From a perusal of the statements of the first informant, complainant respondent No. 2 and her husband Ghanshyam Soni, it becomes clear that both of them have categorically levelled allegations of assault and outraging modesty of the complainant against the petitioner Dayal Moolchandani. The petitioner himself has submitted a complaint to the SHO Police Station Ratanada, Jodhpur wherein, he has admitted the happening of an incident on 21.11.2017, on which day the complainant alleges that the accused outraged her modesty. The defence raised by the petitioner that he possesses the plot in question on rental basis would have to be proved by leading appropriate evidence and this theory of defence cannot be examined in a prayer for quashing the FIR and investigation while exercising inherent powers conferred upon this Court by Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Ex facie, a perusal of the impugned FIR and the material collected so far do disclose necessary ingredients of cognizable offences. Thus, it is not a fit case warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court so as to quash the same. 9. Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. As a consequence, the stay application is also dismissed.