Dismissed

Preeti Jain and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2012CRLW/9/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition assailing FIR-44/2012 was dismissed as frivolous. The court held that since investigation remains pending no charge-sheet exists against petitioners, and Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides the remedy, Article 226 intervention is unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- depositable with Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur.

Preeti Jain and Anr. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

CRI.W.P.-9/12

¶2

(1)

¶3

In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

¶4

Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.9/2012

¶7

Preeti Jain & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

¶8

Date Of Order :: 06.10.2012

¶9

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

¶10

Mr. Mahendra Gaur, for petitioner. Mr. Suresh Sahni, for respondent.

¶11

Instant petition has been filed assailing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners arises from FIR-225/2002 in which charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s 420 IPC against Rishab Jain but charge was framed U/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC by the learned trial court and he is facing trial for offence referred to supra.

¶12

As it reveals from the record that both the petitioners happen to be wife and husband and petitioner-1 is real sister of the complainant Punit Jain who are made accused in FIR-225/2002 but as it reveals from the record that charge-sheet came to be filed only against accused Rishab Jain and there is no pending investigation U/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. and as a consequence whereof, the investigation against the petitioner initiated pursuant to FIR-225/2002 stands dropped.

¶13

CRI.W.P.-9/12

¶14

(2)

¶15

The main thrust of submission of counsel for petitioner is that the accusation in contents of FIR-225/2002 where charge-sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer against Rishab Jain and contents of FIR44/2012 are the same and present petitioners are made accused. However, investigation is pending and as informed to this Court chargesheet has not so far been filed by the investigating officer in reference to FIR44/2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that once the investigating agency has not taken cognizance on FIR-225/2002 after holding investigation there appears no justification for registration of second FIR-44/2012 and further submits that the order framing charge against Rishab Jain by the learned trial court vide order dt.05.01.2012 may be quashed and set aside and as regards the FIR-44/2012 qua the petitioners is not sustainable and may also be quashed and set aside.

¶16

Mr. Suresh Sahni appearing for respondent-6 complainant submits that present petition has been filed primarily to seek interference by this Court as regards FIR44/2012 which in no manner related to FIR225/2002 and after investigation no chargesheet was filed against the petitioners, as such the petitioner at least cannot be said to

¶17

CRI.W.P.-9/12

¶18

(3)

¶19

be aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Judge framing charge against Rishab jain dt.05.01.2012 and as regards FIR44/2012, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved remedy is available of filing criminal misc. petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. He has further informed to this Court that as regards later FIR-44/2012, despite there being noncognizable offences but still the Investigating Officer has not taken steps to nab the present petitioners, however it is still pending investigation and one of the accused Rishab Jain respondent-7 in FIR44/2012 filed regular bail application U/s 439 Cr.P.C. and this Court granted indulgence of post-arrest bail to him on certain terms and conditions vide order dt.14.08.2012. Counsel submits that instant petition has been filed only to seek interference by this Court in the matter which is still pending investigation with the investigating agency and by this indirect method the petitioner is seeking intervention of this Court in FIR-44/2012 registered against the petitioners.

¶20

This Court has heard counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record and of the considered opinion that it is nothing but frivolous petition filed seeking interference of this Court in its

¶21

CRI.W.P.-9/12

¶22

(4)

¶23

equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution and the reasons are obvious.

¶24

Once in the FIR-225/2002 charge-sheet was filed against Rishab Jain and charge finally framed against him, no action either way was taken against the present petitioners by the investigating agency no interference in FIR-225/2002 is at all needed and the accusation against the petitioners stands dropped. As regards FIR-44/2012, the submission is nothing but an outcome of earlier FIR-225/2002 registered against the petitioners is devoid of merit for the reason that it is still pending investigation and no charge-sheet against present petitioners has so far been filed and both the petitioners if aggrieved against the accusation in the FIR registered against them remedy of filing criminal misc. petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is available and this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution, more so when the remedy under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code is available. It is not a case where a right of liberty of a citizen in any manner has been curtailed or infringed by the agency of the state or individual therein.

¶25

I find no substance in the instant petition and same is accordingly dismissed

¶26

CRI.W.P.-9/12

¶27

(5)

¶28

with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which the petitioner is directed to deposit with the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur.

¶29

(Ajay Rastogi),J.

¶30

VS Shekhawat/-p.5 9CriW12Oct06FnlDsps.doc Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Vijay Singh Shekhawat/PAJW

Preeti Jain and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preeti Jain and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yangtze Optical Fibre and Cable Co. Ltd. Vs Aksh Optifibre Ltd.

Dr Rajendra Singh and Anr. Vs State of Raj Medical and Health

Rishabh Agarwal Vs Raj Technical University and Ors.

Pushpa Devi Vs State Panchyati Raj Depors

Amit Soni Vs Raj Ayurved University Ors.

Pace Institute of Professional Vs State of Raj and Ors.