Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 921 (RAJ)

Mardan Ali Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2023-04-25

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. Instant misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta accepting the FR filed by the police in FIR No. 78/2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta to the effect that the accused after entering into a conspiracy proceeded to fabricate the documents and got stamp of same serial number which were used for forging documents. The complainant came to now about the same when he obtained certified copies of the stamps and tallying with the stamp vendor. 3. The complaint was sent to the police station under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. The police registered the case being FIR No. 78/2017 and after investigation, submitted FR that no case is made out against the accused respondents. After considering the evidence collected during investigation and recording statement of witnesses under Section 200 & 202 Cr. P.C., the trial court accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition vide order dated 19.01.2019. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta which too was dismissed vide order dated 14.06.2022. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the material aspect of the matter, the trial court mechanically rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. It is argued that on the basis of statement of the complainant, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused respondent. It is argued that the petitioner has clearly stated that there cannot be two stamps of same serial number and therefore, the accused respondents had committed the offence. It is argued that the investigating officer has not investigated the matter in correct perspective and therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that both the courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition and revision petition respectively, which does not called for any interference. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that both the courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition and revision petition respectively, which does not called for any interference. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned so also the record. 7. It is not disputed that after thorough investigation, the police submitted a final report to the effect that no case is made out against the respondents as the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case against the respondents. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta after considering the Final report submitted by the police, rejected the protest petition on the said ground. The revision petition filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Merta by way of a detailed order. In the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for disbelieving the negative Final report filed by the police after thorough investigation. Learned court below after considering the entire material on record, has accepted the Final report filed by the police. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 19.01.2019 & 14.06,2022. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed.