Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 928 (RAJ)

Balwan Sihag S/o Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2024-07-04

ARUN MONGA

body2024
ORDER : 1. The petitioner, an under trial, is before this Court challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh dated 02.11.2022 in Criminal Case No. 871/2022 State of Rajasthan Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vide the impugned order cognizance against the petitioner for alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 342/34 IPC has been taken. 2. It is stated the complainant/respondent No. 2, Jai Narayan, reported that on 19.05.2021, at 3:30 p.m., while he was grazing animals between village Mehliya-Bojhla, accused arrived in a car at the scene of occurrence. Balwan Sihag, Suresh Sihag, Khiraj Meghwal, and 2-3 other individuals got off the car and started accusing him of selling illegal wine. They abducted him, took him to a factory owned by one Balwan, and physically assaulted him. 2.1. During the investigation, the police inspected the site and recorded statements of various prosecution witnesses. After investigation, a charge sheet against Suresh Kumar Sihag and Khiraj for offences under Sections 365, 323, 342, and 34 IPC was filed. The petitioner was found to be innocent and not involved in any of the alleged offences. A negative final report qua him was thus filed. 3. The trial court issued notice to the complainant regarding the negative final report submitted by the police. The complainant, in response to the notice, appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, and instead sought cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioner as well. 4. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 365, 323, 342/34 IPC and summoned the accused petitioner through a bailable warrant vide an order dated 02.11.2022. Hence, the present petition. 5. In the aforementioned background, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Upon reviewing the record, it is evident that the initial investigation was conducted by one Jai Singh, ASI, who did not favor the complaint. It appears, that at the instance of complainant the investigating officer was changed, and Sunil Kumar Jhajharia, a senior police officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. was appointed. 7. After his investigation (DSP), it was reported that, it was, in fact, complainant Jai Narain himself who was involved in selling illegal wine in a village. He was thus found to be of unscrupulous character. Consequently, after the investigation, a negative final report was filed by the Dy. S.P. 8. S.P. was appointed. 7. After his investigation (DSP), it was reported that, it was, in fact, complainant Jai Narain himself who was involved in selling illegal wine in a village. He was thus found to be of unscrupulous character. Consequently, after the investigation, a negative final report was filed by the Dy. S.P. 8. Notably, there is another aspect: the Dy. S.P. was the third investigating officer. In between, for a short period, Sukhram, a police official below the rank of Dy. S.P., was involved but before he could conclude the investigation, the matter was reassigned to the Dy. S.P. who too eventually submitted the negative report qua petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that even the second I.O. was about to prepare a negative final report and, that the complainant exerted pressure on superiors to change the I.O. While this argument is being though noted, but the record does not specify the reason for the change of I.O. whether it was at the instance of the complainant or the accused. 10. Regardless, this Court is not concerned with the aforesaid assertion. What is relevant is that a police officer of the rank of Dy. S.P. submitted a final report after conducting an investigation. When the negative final report was filed, the learned Magistrate did not accept it, reasoning that the accused, being a politically influential person, had likely influenced the investigation. 11. I am of the view that, the reasoning adopted by the learned Magistrate is complete moonshine. It is devoid of any evidence or any supporting material available on record and, is based merely on presumption, making it unsustainable. 12. The trial court thus erroneously took cognizance against the accused petitioner without sufficient evidence and without considering the material available on record. Moreover, impugned order is sans recording of any statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. As an upshot, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is set aside, and the negative final report submitted by the Dy. S.P. is accepted. Consequently, in light of the report's acceptance, the FIR qua petitioner necessarily deserves to be quashed. It is so ordered. Trial qua the rest of the accused to proceed in accordance with law. 13. The petition is allowed in above terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.