Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 447 (RAJ)

Radha Devi W/o Gemra Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-03-14

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Barmer whereby the learned Judge dismissed the protest petition and accepted the FR filed by the police in FIR No. 78/2022. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant complainant submitted a written complaint before the police stating therein that on 09.12.2022, when she was fetching water from water tank of her house, the accused persons and started smoking. When she refused, the accused persons got agitated and started abusing her. Upon hearing noise, when her brother in law came, the accused assaulted him and threatened to vacate the house etc. 3. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 78/2022 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 354/143 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered and after investigation, the police submitted FR that no case is made out against the accused respondent. The appellant filed a protest petition before the learned trial court. After considering the evidence collected during investigation and recording statement of witnesses, the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Barmer accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition vide order dated 24.01.2023. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that without considering the material aspect of the matter, the trial court mechanically rejected the protest petition filed by the appellant. It is argued that on the basis of statement of the complainant and witnesses recorded, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused respondent. It is argued that the learned trial court failed to apply its mind whereas, a prima facie case was made out against the accused . 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 supported the impugned order and submitted that the trial court has discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition, which does not call for any interference. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned so also the record. 7. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and submitted that the trial court has discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition, which does not call 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 accused as the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case against the respondent. Learned trial court after considering the Final report submitted by the police, rejected the protest petition on the said ground 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 order dated 24.01.2023. Hence, this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. 8. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.