Dismissed

Damodar Prasad v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2013CRLR/767/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order directing police enquiry under Section 202 CrPC. The court held the enquiry was necessary due to disputed issues regarding the sale of a tractor and fraudulently created documents. The dismissal of the revision petition was found to have no illegality.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; case remanded for fresh order after enquiry under Section 202 CrPC.

Damodar Prasad Vs State and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 767/2006

¶6

Damodar Prasad versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶7

2.1.2013

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶9

Mr Ravi Kasliwal – for petitioner

¶10

Mr Peeyush Kumar, PP – for the State

¶11

Mr Pankaj Gupta – for respondents No.2

¶12

Mr Satish Khandal – for respondent No.3

¶13

BY THE COURT:

¶14

By this misc. petition challenge is made to the order

¶15

dated 4.7.2006 passed in revision petition preferred by the nonpetitioners.

¶16

It is a case where complaint was lodged by the petitioner. Initially, complaint was dismissed, however, on revision petition, matter was remanded back for enquiry under section 202 CrPC to the police and thereafter cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. Against the said order, revision petition was preferred and has been decided by the impugned

¶17

¶18

order.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance was rightly taken after recording statement under section 200 CrPC. It is not compulsory that enquiry under section 202 CrPC has to be made for taking cognizance. This is more so when enquiry under section 202 CrPC was undertaken by the police on the specific order and report thereupon was submitted. The learned Magistrate took cognizance after taking note of the statements of the complainant and the report submitted by the police.

¶20

It is a case where a tractor met with an accident and thereupon on lodging FIR, tractor was seized. It was having no registration number. During course of investigation, driver was arrested. On information of the driver, a notice under section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act was issued to Hanuman Prasad, who informed that the said tractor was purchased by him from Ravi Machinary Store through one Satya Narayan. Petitioner thereupon filed a complaint for manipulating and fraudulently making documents to get away from the claim case and fasten the liability on the petitioner. The act of Hanuman Prasad was taken note of for taking cognizance. Accordingly, impugned order deserves to

¶21

¶22

be set aside.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no illegality in the impugned order inasmuch as based on the complaint, cognizance was taken ignoring material fact and therefore an enquiry under section 202 CrPC has rightly been directed vide impugned order.

¶24

I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶25

It is a case where at the first instance, complaint was dismissed, however, on revision and remand, the matter was sent for enquiry under section 202 CrPC. It was with the particular issue as to whether the tractor in question was manufactured and issued by the 'Eisher' Limited, Alwar or not. The enquiry report was submitted by the police and taking note of the statement of the complainant under section 200 CrPC, cognizance was taken.

¶26

I find that the issue in dispute is as to whether the tractor was ever sold by Hanuman Prasad to the petitioner or the documents were created fraudulently to get away from the claim case as the tractor was not having insurance at the time of

¶27

¶28

accident. For the aforesaid purpose, the material aspect can be not only the statement of the complainant but other documents also which have not been looked into properly because the earlier enquiry under section 202 CrPC was limited to the issue given by the court concerned. In the background aforesaid, matter is remanded back for fresh order after an enquiry under section 202 CrPC. I do not find any illegality therein.

¶29

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The record of the case may be sent back immediately.

¶30

(MN BHANDARI), J.

¶31

bnsharma

¶32

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶33

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Damodar Prasad v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodar Prasad v. State 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

Umardaraz Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Shivpal Vs State Education Departmentors

Hanuman Sahai Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhuryua an Vs Tate

Ankur Kumar Sharma Vs State Ministry of Tourism Ors.

Chand Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.