Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 362 (RAJ)

Vimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-27

SUDESH BANSAL

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Petitioner-complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 20.02.2015 passed in criminal revision petition No.1/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur, affirming the order dated 13.12.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roopwas, District Bharatpur, whereby her protest petition was dismissed and accepted the negative final report in connection with FIR No.297/2013 registered at Police Station Roopbas, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 323, 341, 376 (2)/ 511 IPC r/w Section 3 SC/ST Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. It has been revealed that the petitioner-complainant lodged the impugned FIR by way of filing a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Roopbas on 05.06.2013 in respect of an incident alleged to be occurred on 03.06.2013 at 10:PM in night at CHC, Roopbas, District Bharatpur where the petitioner was posted as "Yashoda", a post created by the State Government. The allegation of petitioner is that two male nurse, named in the complaint, engaged in scuffle with her and outraged her modesty so also abused her with caste aspersion, fundamentally for the reason that the petitioner declined to provide money from attendants of patients, who came at CHC, Roopbas for delivery. The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and therefore, the impugned FIR came to be registered at Police Station Roopbas, District Bharatpur. 4. During course of investigation in the impugned FIR, it was revealed that on 03.06.2013, Dr. Lakhpat Ram attended the patient, who was brought for her delivery and since female nurse was not available at the spur of moment, the petitioner persuaded attendants of patient to allow her to perform the work of delivery. Dr. Lakhpat Ram declined for the assistance of petitioner as female nurse, on the ground that the job of petitioner, who is posted as "Yoshada", is only to take care of the patient and child after delivery. It is not the job of petitioner being "Yashoda" to perform the work of delivery. Dr. Lakhpat Ram declined for the assistance of petitioner as female nurse, on the ground that the job of petitioner, who is posted as "Yoshada", is only to take care of the patient and child after delivery. It is not the job of petitioner being "Yashoda" to perform the work of delivery. It has further been revealed in the investigation that due to declining the petitioner to perform the work of delivery, she called her husband namely Ramesh, who created ruckus in the CHC and torn the register as also assaulted on two male nurse on duty. For such incident, one FIR was registered on 03.06.2013 itself against Ramesh and the petitioner. In that FIR, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Thereafter petitioner filed the criminal complaint on 05.06.2013, on the basis of a false story just to save herself from the criminal prosecution in the FIR lodged against her and her husband so also to exert pressure on the doctor and other two male nurse, who were witnesses in the criminal case against her. 5. In view of revelation of such factual matrix, Investigating Officer submitted negative final report, finding allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint as false so also not established by any evidence. 6. After submission of negative final report before the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner opted to file protest petition. In her protest petition, the Judicial Magistrate permitted her to produce statements, which were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses namely Karansingh, Devarilal and Vinod were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate, having gone through statements of complainant and her witnesses so also as per the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency during course of investigation, prima facie observed that the petitioner has not controverted grounds on which Investigating Agency submitted the negative final report. 7. In such view, the Judicial Magistrate did not find any sufficient material to take cognizance of offence, hence being satisfied with the negative final report accepted the same and dismissed the protest petition vide order impugned dated 13.12.2013. 8. 7. In such view, the Judicial Magistrate did not find any sufficient material to take cognizance of offence, hence being satisfied with the negative final report accepted the same and dismissed the protest petition vide order impugned dated 13.12.2013. 8. Petitioner challenged the order dated 13.12.2013 by way of filing the criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The revisional Court examined the order impugned and dismissed the revision petition on merits with findings that the denial to take cognizance and acceptance of negative final report does not suffer from any perversity, illegality, impropriety, which needs to be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2015. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a persuasive attempt before this Court that sufficient evidence is available on record to take cognizance of offence and the Judicial Magistrate traveled beyond its jurisdiction to discuss the evidence elaborately and minutely at the stage of cognizance, which is not warranted in law. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that both impugned orders suffer from illegality and jurisdictional error, as such be set aside and the matter be remanded to the concerned Judicial Magistrate to re-consider afresh on the point of taking cognizance. 11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Garodia v. The State of Assam and Anr.[2024/INSC/39], held and observed as under:- "No doubt that the learned Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C.,1973 is not bound to accept the final report of the I.O. However, if the learned Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the I.O., the least that is expected of him is to give reasons as to why he disagrees with such a report and as to why he finds it necessary to take cognizance despite the negative report submitted by the I.O. Nothing of that sort has been done by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 4th July 2017. " 12. In the light of judgment pronounced by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Judicial Magistrate has not committed any jurisdictional error much less illegality, to concur with the negative final report, after evaluating the evidence on record including statements of complainant and her witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 13. " 12. In the light of judgment pronounced by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Judicial Magistrate has not committed any jurisdictional error much less illegality, to concur with the negative final report, after evaluating the evidence on record including statements of complainant and her witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 13. Perusal of the order dated 13.12.2013, reveals that the Judicial Magistrate has opined that statements of witnesses are not believable, primarily on the ground that such witnesses were not even named by the petitioner in the criminal complaint filed on 05.06.2013. Further, the revisional Court, within its jurisdiction has examined the correctness, illegality and propriety of the order dated 13.12.2013 and dismissed the revision petition on merits. 14. This Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned orders which leads to miscarriage of justice or warrants interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is settled proposition of law that unless impugned orders pertaining to cognizance, do not suffer from patent defect, jurisdictional error, procedural error or error of law, which is against the mandate of law, as much as maintaining impugned orders leads to failure of justice, the High Court is not expected to interfere in impugned Orders. This Court is of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to interfere with impugned orders, the jurisdiction of High Court can be exercised only to prevent an abuse of process of law and for ends of justice. In addition to above, it is noteworthy to mention that the present petition falls in the category of second criminal revision petition in the guise of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. since second revision petition is impermissible in law and expressly barred by virtue of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 15. With aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. 16. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.