Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1732 (RAJ)

Ranjeet Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-09-12

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.:— The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-complainant Ranjeet Kumar for assailing the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kota rejecting the criminal revision (No. 01/2021) preferred by him and affirming the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 7, Kota in regular CIS No. 1653/2017 (FR No. 159/2017) whereby the learned trial court while accepting the FR filed by the investigating agency, rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner - complainant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant submitted a complaint in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Kota inter alia alleging that his marriage with the respondent No. 2 Pinky Mahawar was solemnized in the year 2011. However, she has been residing with her parents since 2013 and she has lodged several false and frivolous cases against him. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused/respondent No. 2 has been receiving pension under the scheme of Rajasthan State Government from Social Justice and Empowerment Department. She is also receiving pension for her daughter under Palanhar Pension Scheme. It is claimed in the complaint that she is not entitled for pension benefits and has been getting the same on the basis of false and fabricated documents. It has been alleged in the complaint that the respondent No. 2 has lodged cases for domestic violence but in none of the case, she has mentioned this fact of receiving family pensions. 3. The learned trial court forwarded the complaint to the Police Station Nayapura for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. After investigation, the police found the complaint to be false and submitted a negative final report before the learned court concerned against which, the petitioner filed a protest petition and examined himself as witness and prayed the learned trial court to take cognizance against the respondent No. 2 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned trial court after hearing arguments from both the sides, rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the negative final report filed by the police vide order dated 09.03.2021. Being aggrieved of the order dated 09.03.2021, the petitioner filed a revision petition (No. 01/2021) before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kota. The learned trial court after hearing arguments from both the sides, rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the negative final report filed by the police vide order dated 09.03.2021. Being aggrieved of the order dated 09.03.2021, the petitioner filed a revision petition (No. 01/2021) before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kota. However, the learned revisional court, too vide its order dated 25.08.2022 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned trial court. Hence this misc. petition. 4. Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the learned trial court seriously erred in rejecting the protest petition filed by the petitioner-complainant and accepting the negative final report filed by the investigating agency. He contends that the respondent No. 2 gave false statement on oath for getting pension whereas she is not entitled for the same and as such, it is clear that prima facie offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is made out against the respondent No. 2. He further contends that the learned trial court has committed grave illegality in accepting the Final Report without considering the material available on record which clearly shows that the accused respondent No. 2 has committed offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. He further contends that the learned revisional court too overlooked this important aspect of the matter and affirmed the order passed by the learned trial court. He thus, prays that the instant criminal misc. petition may be accepted and the orders passed by the learned courts below may be rejected. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after due application of mind two courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts and as such, no interference is required in the orders impugned. They thus, sought dismissal of the instant misc. petition. 6. They thus, sought dismissal of the instant misc. petition. 6. After having heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and after going through the impugned orders, 1 am of the opinion that the trial court has duly applied its mind, to the facts of the case and has passed a well reasoned order accepting the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency and rejecting the protest petition filed by the petitioner. There is nothing on record which suggests that the respondent No. 2 has furnished any wrong information for getting pension benefit or that she has prepared any forged documents. The order passed by the trial court has also been rightly affirmed by the revisional court. Two courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts. Both the courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction and discretion in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for accepting the protest petition. 7. It is worth mentioning that in the garb of present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has filed second revision petition which is not maintainable. In the case of Deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai v. Akhil Rai, 1995 SCC (Cri) 1020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:— 4. The High Court also should have taken care to verify the record before accepting the concession made by the learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can not be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As we find that the order passed by the High Court is not legal and just it will have to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur to proceed further with Criminal Case No. 69 of 1993. In the case of Wajid Mirza v. Mohammed Ali Ahmed, 1982 Cri LJ 590, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as under:— 23. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur to proceed further with Criminal Case No. 69 of 1993. In the case of Wajid Mirza v. Mohammed Ali Ahmed, 1982 Cri LJ 590, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as under:— 23. This Court In Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy, (1979) 1 AJIJ 1 : AIR 1979 AP 146 at p. 149 (FB) held:— The language of sub-section (3) of Section 397 contains no ambiguity. If any person had already chosen to file a revision before the High Court or to the Sessions Court under subsection (1), the same person cannot prefer a further application to the other Court. To put it in other words, sub-sec.(1) and (3) make it clear that a person aggrieved by any order or proceeding can seek remedy by way of revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Once, he has availed himself of the remedy, he is precluded from approaching the other forum. It is equally manifest from the provisions of sub-section (3) that this bar is limited to the same person who has already chosen to go either to the High Court or to the Sessions court seeking a remedy and that it does not apply to the other parties or persons.” 8. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference therein. 9. Accordingly, the misc. petition is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.