Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 881 (RAJ)

Sumer Singh v. State

2022-03-14

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 & 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: Revision Petition No. 143/2014: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 09.11.2013 for discharging the respondents No.2 to 8 may kindly be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the order of learned Magistrate Abu Road dated 04.07.2009 may kindly be upheld. Revision Petition No. 152/2014: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 09.11.2013 for discharging the respondents No.2 & 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the order of learned Magistrate Abu Road dated 04.07.2009 may kindly be upheld." 3. The genesis of the present dispute is traceable to an anti corruption exercise which was being undertaken by the personnel of the Anti Corruption Department (ACD) (respondents No.2 & 3 in revision petition No.152/2014), against the employees of the State Transport Department (respondents No.2 to 8 in revision petition No.143/2014), in connection with some complaints said to have been lodged against them regarding their alleged corrupt practices, while being on duty on the National Highway. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a photocopy shop situated near Maval Check Post bordering Rajasthan & Gujarat. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a photocopy shop situated near Maval Check Post bordering Rajasthan & Gujarat. And that, on 06.10.2006, while the petitioner was going from his shop to Pindwara, the aforementioned personnel from the ACD came and stopped the petitioner, and took him to the Maval Checkpost and made him sit in a room; after few minutes the aforesaid employees of the State Transport Department came to the petitioner in the said room and informed him that they had a talk with the ACD personnel, and compelled the petitioner to take upon him the whole responsibility of the alleged corruption practices, being done by them (respondents No.2 to 8), in view of the fact since the petitioner is not a government servant, therefore, he will not be prosecuted for the corruption charges by the ACD, thereby enabling the employees in question of the Transport Department to evade the necessary prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, under the immense pressure exerted upon the petitioner by the respondents, the petitioner being highly vulnerable, succumbed to such pressure, and gave an amount of Rs.16,170/- to the ACD personnel, and thereafter, the respondents No. 2 to 8 asked the petitioner to arrange for further amount of Rs.30,000/-, which was also given by him to the ACD personnel. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that before doing so, the petitioner asked the ACD personnel that if they are not willing to take any action against the employees of the Transport Department, then why the petitioner was being unnecessarily entangled in the case; whereupon the ACD personnel informed the petitioner that the matter has already been reported to the higher authorities of the ACD, and thus, the case is required to be registered; however, they assured that the petitioner shall not be prosecuted for the charges in question. But despite that, the A.C.D. personnel refused to take the petitioner's name out of the case, and filed an F.I.R. against him for the offences under Sections 170, 420, 120-B IPC, wherein after due investigation, the policed had filed the negative final report. 5. But despite that, the A.C.D. personnel refused to take the petitioner's name out of the case, and filed an F.I.R. against him for the offences under Sections 170, 420, 120-B IPC, wherein after due investigation, the policed had filed the negative final report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the aforementioned employees of the ACD and the State Transport Department before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, whereupon vide order dated 04.07.2009, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the ACD personnel under Section 120-B, 166, 167, 384 & 323 IPC; and against the employees of the State Transport Department under Sections 120-B, 384 & 323 IPC. Learned counsel also submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance order, the respondents (ACD personnel as well as employees of the Transport Department) preferred revision petitions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi, whereupon vide the impugned order dated 09.11.2013, while allowing the said revision petitions and setting aside the cognizance order, the respondents were discharged of the offences. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondents (ACD personnel & employees of the Transport Department) oppose the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submit that the averments made by the petitioner in the present petitions, have already been duly considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, while passing the impugned order. They further submit that the impugned order was passed, while also keeping in view the fact that before instituting the criminal proceedings against the government employees (respondents), the mandatory prosecution sanction, was not obtained, thereby, vitiating the whole endeavour against the respondents-employees. 7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. At the outset, this Court observes that the averments made herein by the petitioner were already made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, followed by their due consideration by that Court, as is reflected from the record. Furthermore, the learned court below vide the impugned order discharged the government employees in question (respondents) from the offences alleged against them, after duly appreciating the evidence brought on the record before it and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Furthermore, the learned court below vide the impugned order discharged the government employees in question (respondents) from the offences alleged against them, after duly appreciating the evidence brought on the record before it and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. This Court observes that the learned court below, vide the impugned order, has recorded the testimony of the witnesses, whereupon it was found that the averments made by the petitioner were not corroborated by any evidence nor the testimonies of other witnesses. Furthermore, the allegations made by the petitioner were unsubstantiated and not found to have been proved before the learned court below, which could enable the criminal prosecution against the aforementioned government employees in relation to the charges framed against them. 10. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find any reason so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order dated 09.11.2013 passed by the learned court below. 11. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.