Remanded

Devendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2017CRLMP/5476/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan set aside an intermediate single judge order that had quashed criminal proceedings. The Court held that where accused persons have raised valid defences based on public documents, the trial court must consider them before dismissing the case.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was set aside and the case was remanded to the High Court to consider the accused's defence arising from public documents before making a final order.

Devendra Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ihB] t;iqj

¶3

vkns'k

¶4

S.B.Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 5476 / 2016

¶5

Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Kumar B/c Kumhar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 20/37, MLA Flats, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶6

Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Balram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 54, Post 34 Chak, Sri Ganganagar (Raj)

¶7

Prahlad Rai Tank S/o Shri Surjaram Tank, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 113-G, Block, Sri Ganganagar.

¶8

Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Shri Laduram Verma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Chandraveer Colony, Jaisalmer.

¶9

Raj Sethia S/o Sardari Lal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 17/10, Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

¶10

Sanjay Acharya S/o Shri Jaikishan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Acharyon Ka Chowk, Jaisalmer.

¶11

----Accused/Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶14

Dalpat Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh B/c Rajput, R/o A- block, Old MREC Campus, Gandhinagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶15

----Complainant/Respondents

¶16

vkns'k fnukad % 09-03-2017

¶17

ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh cuokjhyky 'kekZ

¶18

Jh ,l ,u dqekor rFkk Jh jes'k pUn 'kekZ] vf/koDrkx.k&;kphx.k dh vksj lsA Jh ,u ,l /kkdM] yksd vfHk;kstdA

¶19

izdj.k vkt vkbZ , la[;k 4802@2017 okLrs 'kh?kz lquokbZ ij lwphc) gqvk gSA

¶20

vkosnu esa of.kZr rF; ,oa izLrqr rdksaZ dks e/;utj j[krs gq, vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izdj.k dh lquokbZ vkt gh dh tkrh gSA

¶21

¶22

;kphx.k vfHk;qDrx.k us bl ;kfpdk esa fo}ku v/khuLFk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] dze&17] t;iqj egkuxj ds vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2016 dks pqukSrh nh gS ftlds }kjk fd fo}ku v/khuLFk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; us vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2016 ds }kjk ;kphx.k }kjk izLrqr nks izFkd&izFkd izkFkZuk i= fnukad 10-12-2013 rFkk 22-06-2015 dks vLohdkj dj fn;k] ftuds }kjk fd ;kphx.k us fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ds le{k nLrkostkr is'k dj mUgsa vfHkys[k ij ysus dk fuosnu fd;k FkkA

¶23

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k Jh ,l ,u dqekor rFkk Jh jes'k pUn 'kekZ us fuosnu fd;k gS fd ;kphx.k ds fo:) ifjoknh nyirflag us cgSfl;r eq[R;kjuke ,dyO; falg iq= dqekj flag fnukad 08-04-2009 dks iqfyl Fkkuk xka/khuxj] t;iqj esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 183@2009 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 rFkk 120ch Hkk-na-la- esa ;kphx.k ij QthZ Hkkxhnkjh foys[k fnukad 01-04-2005 dks Jh ,dyO; flag ds dwVjfpr gLrk{kj djds rS;kj fd;k FkkA bl QthZ foys[k }kjk Jh ,dyO; flag dks mDr QeZ esa Hkkxhnkjh ls gh fjVk;j dj fn;k x;k] tcfd fnukad 01-04-2005 dks Jh ,dyO; flag Hkkjr esa gh ugha Fks cfYd flaxkiqj esa Fks] dk vkjksi yxkrs gq, ntZ djk;h gSA

¶24

mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd ftl nLrkostkr ds vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h gS] mu nLrkostksa ds laca/k esa U;k;ky; ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] tSlyesj ds le{k ifjoknh o QeZ ds }kjk okn is'k fd;k x;k ftlesa mu nLrkostksa dks oS/; ik;k x;k gS vkSj ifjoknh ,dyO; flag us vius dFkuksa esa mu nLrkostksa dks Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij ckn esa okn fMdzh dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA rnuqlkj vkosnu ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkost izdj.k ds U;k;iw.kZ fuLrkj.k ds fy, vko';d gSa] ftUgsa vfHkys[k ij ugha ysdj fo}ku fuxjkuh U;k;ky; us =qfV dh gSA vr% vkyksP; vkns'k dks vikLr fd;k tkdj ;kphx.k }kjk i z Lrqr vkosnuksa dks Lohdkj fd;k tkos rFkk vkosnuksa ds lkFk izLrqr nLrkostksa dks vfHkys[k ij fy;k tkosA

¶25

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k us vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley and Others (2011) 3 SCC 351 rFkk Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council and another (2012) 1 SCC 520 ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;sA

¶26

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd Jh thrsUnz Jhekyh us vkyksP; vkns'k dk

¶27

¶28

leFkZu djrs gq, ;kfpdk vLohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶29

lquk x;k] mHk; i{k ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA

¶30

izdj.k izdj.k esa pwafd ifjoknh nyirflag us izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa mlus vius vkidks ,dyO; flag dk eq[R;kj crk;k gS rFkk ftu nLrkostksa dks tkyh crk;k gS] mu nLrkostksa dks muds dkfrc ,dyO;flag us Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj mldh LohdkjksfRr ds vk/kkj ij okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa vkosnuksa ds lkFk layXu nLrkostkr izdj.k ds U;k;iw.kZ fuLrkj.k ds fy, egRoiw.kZ gks tkrs gSa] ftu ij fopkj u dj v/khuLFk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; us =qfV dh gSA

¶31

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Harshendra Kumar D. vs. Rebatilata Koley and Others (mijksDr) ds izdj.k esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd&

¶32

“It is not the law that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, if on the face of the documents - which are beyond suspicion or doubt - placed by accused, the accusations against him cannot stand, it would be travesty

¶33

¶34

of justice if accused is relegated to trial and he is asked to prove his defence before the trial court. In such a matter, for promotion of justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court may look into the materials which have significant bearing on the matter at prima facie stage.”

¶35

blh izdkj Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council and another (mijksDr) ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd&

¶36

“ A conjoint reading of Sections 159, 163 and 610(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a certified copy of annual return is a public document. The Annual Return dated 30.09.1999 which provides the details about the existing Directors clearly show that the appellant was not a Director at the relevant time. Criminal proceedings against the appellant could have been quashed on the basis of this document. Inasmuch as the certified copy of the annual return dated 30.09.1999 is a public document, more particularly, in view of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is held that the appellant has validly resigned from the Directorship of the Company even in the year 1998 and she cannot be held responsible for the dishonour of the cheques issued in the year 2004.”

¶37

¶38

mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds ifjizs{; esa tc nLrkostksa ds lR;kiu ij lansg ugha gS vkSj izdj.k 'kq:vkr dh LVst ij gS] ml LVst ij vfHk;qDr ds }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr ftuds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk iw.kZ fuLrkj.k laHkkO; gS] ,sls nLrkostksa ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA ftu ij fopkj u dj fo}ku v/khuLFk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; us =qfV dh gSA rnuqlkj fo}ku v/khuLFk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2016 fLFkj jgus ;ksX; ugha ik;k tkrk gS rFkk ;g fofo/k ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;h tkrh gSA

¶39

rnuqlkj ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 19-05-2016 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk v/khuLFk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os vkosnu ckcr vfHkys[k ij fy;s tkus ds lkFk layXu nLrkostkr ij fopkj djus ds ckn fuxjkuh dk fof/k&iw.kZ fuLrkj.k djsaA

¶40

rnuqlkj ;g ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA

¶41

¼cuokjh yky 'kekZ½ U;k;kf/kifr

¶42

feRry@27

Devendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Abdul Sagir Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sanjay and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Surendar Singh Meel Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rambabu Kasana Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

M/S K-7 Empex Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.