Two Criminal Revision Petitions challenging orders allowing revision petitions filed by accused persons in private complaint cases. The High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no ground for interference as prior orders accepting negative final reports were not illegal.
Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 1086/2004 and 1087/2004 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1086 / 2004
Dalip Kumar S/o Girdhari Lal, B/c Jatav, R/o Suket P.S., District Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1087/2004
Dalip Kumar S/o Girdhari Lal, B/c Jatav, R/o Khan Sathan Khandi Suket P.S., District Kota.
–---Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P. For Accused (S) : None.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
09/11/2017
Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be
disposed of as the controversy involved in both the cases is the same.
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-1086/2004]
Petitioner lodged FIR against three persons, namely Atirkur Rehman, Ramesh Kumar Choudhary and Bal Kishan. After thorough investigation of the case, negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency on 14.09.2002. Despite issuance of notice to the petitioner, he had failed to appear before the Magistrate and vide the order dated 03.10.2002, the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency was accepted by the Magistrate. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner.
Petitioner filed a private complaint on the basis of the same allegations levelled in the FIR. Magistrate vide order dated 24.04.2003 ordered for summoning of the accused. Accused preferred the revision petitions against the said order and the said petitions were allowed by the Court of revision vide impugned orders. Hence the present petitions.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
The Court of revision while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent Atirkur Rehman held that during police investigation, it was found that no offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was established to have been committed by the accused. It transpired that the parties were having business dealings. No documents in this regard were available on record. Negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency had been accepted by the Magistrate and that had become final.
In these circumstances, the Court of revision rightly held
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-1086/2004]
that the complaint filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. Revision petition filed by accused Ramesh Kumer Choudhary was allowed, in view of the fact that the revision petition filed by accused Atirkur Rehman had been allowed.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference by this Court is made out as impugned orders do not suffer from the vice of illegality.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
S.Kumawat/D-30 & Supp-1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with orders allowing dismissal of private complaint based on negative final report.
Whether sufficient ground is made out for interference with the impugned orders of the Court of revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dalip Kumar
State of Rajasthan
Atirkur Rehman
Ramesh Kumar Choudhary
Ba. Kishan Mahajan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
