Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1132 (RAJ)

Dharam Singh Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-05-17

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

body2023
ORDER : Chandra Kumar Songara, J. Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioner against the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revisional Court'), in Criminal Revision Petition No.60/2011, whereby while allowing the revision petition filed by the complainant-respondent No.2, the case was remanded back to the trial Court to pass afresh order, and the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sikrai, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), dismissing the application filed by complainant-respondent No.2 for taking cognizance & accepting the Final Report, was set aside. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, of the present case are that the complainant-respondent No.2, namely Harinarayan submitted a complaint on 28.07.2007 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai, District Dausa, which was forwarded to Police Station, Manpur under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. Thereupon, an F.I.R. No.265/2007 was registered at Police Station Manpur for offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Prior to filing of above said complaint, complainant-respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 12.02.2007 on the same facts, which was dismissed as not pressed. In F.I.R. bearing No.265/2007, a Final Report was submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai. On 19.10.2011, learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai passed a detailed order, accepted the Final Report & rejected the application of the complainant-respondent No.2 for taking cognizance. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2011, the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a Revision Petition, which has been allowed by the Revisional Court, vide its order dated 29.01.2014, against which the present petitioner has filed a Revision Petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Vide its order dated 22.04.2014 the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has quashed & set aside the order dated 29.01.2014 and remanded the matter back to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa. After the order dated 22.04.2014 of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, the matter was heard by Additional District & Sessions Judge again on same findings. Vide its order dated 11.02.2015, the said Court allowed the revision petition filed by complainant-respondent No.2, while setting-aside the order dated 19.10.2011. Hence, this petition. 3. After the order dated 22.04.2014 of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, the matter was heard by Additional District & Sessions Judge again on same findings. Vide its order dated 11.02.2015, the said Court allowed the revision petition filed by complainant-respondent No.2, while setting-aside the order dated 19.10.2011. Hence, this petition. 3. Contentions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner are that the impugned order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the learned Revisional Court below is perverse and against the well settled principles of law. Learned Revisional Court has failed to appreciate the fact that earlier also, Police had submitted a Final Report before learned Magistrate, which was sent for further investigation and after that, Police again submitted a Final Report. Earlier, the complainant has filed the complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the same facts, as mentioned in the second complaint. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the learned Revisional Court be quashed & set aside, and the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, be upheld. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2, have opposed the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record. 6. While dismissing the application filed by the complainant for taking cognizance & accepting the Final Report, learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 19.10.2011, had observed "previously, a Final Report was submitted by the Police in the matter and the Court by its order dated 19.08.2008 has sent it back for re-investigation. Police re-investigated the matter and after getting the disputed receipt examined by F.S.L., again submitted Final Report in the matter. Neither the receipt contains any description of the plot in respect of which the complainant has told that money has been given nor it does contain that when will the agreement be done nor it does contain any fact revealing that when will the possession be given". 7. Learned trial Court had also observed "Neither there is any ground to take cognizance against the accused for the alleged offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. nor there is any ground to show the requirements to send back the record for re-investigation". 8. 7. Learned trial Court had also observed "Neither there is any ground to take cognizance against the accused for the alleged offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. nor there is any ground to show the requirements to send back the record for re-investigation". 8. While setting aside the impugned order of the learned trial Court & remanding back the matter to the learned trial Court to pass afresh order, learned Revisional Court vide its impugned order dated 11.02.2015, had observed "the matter has been sent for re-investigation. Subsequently, after considering the matter to be of civil nature, a negative final report has been submitted. The conclusion given by the Subordinate Court dismissing the application filed by the revisionist for re-investigation and found that no prima-facie case under Section 420 of I.P.C. is made out, is not appropriate". 9. It reveals from the impugned order of the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court that after investigation, Police had submitted a Final Report, in negative form on the ground that the case is found to be of civil nature. Learned trial Court passed a detailed impugned order and has not found sufficient ground for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., whereas the Revisional Court found the aforesaid grounds of the learned trial Court not appropriate. 10. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 11. In the present case, after investigation, earlier Police submitted a Final Report, in negative form, thereafter, the matter was sent for re-investigation by learned trial Court vide its order dated 19.08.2008. After re-investigating, again Police submitted a Final Report, in negative form and learned trial Court did not find any sufficient ground for taking cognizance for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Thus, the contentions raised by the complainant have no force in the facts & circumstances of the present case and the Revisional Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Court dated 11.02.2015 is, hereby, quashed & set aside and the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned trial Court is, hereby, upheld. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Court dated 11.02.2015 is, hereby, quashed & set aside and the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned trial Court is, hereby, upheld. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.