Dismissed

Suman Saharan and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 May 2018CRLMP/1273/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking police protection. The bench observed that the petitioners filed repeated petitions, concealed facts about a prior habeas corpus petition, and lacked clean hands, intending to pressure police rather than seek genuine protection.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the petition was dismissed as having no merit.

Suman Saharan and Anr. Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1273 / 2018

¶3

Suman Saharan W/o Shri Ramji Lal D/o Shri Balwant Saharan, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of No. 6 Industrial Area, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

Ramji Lal S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Turibhat, Resident of No. 6 Industrial Area, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan Through the Chief Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar.

¶9

Circle Officer, Suratgarh City District Sri Ganganagar.

¶10

Station House Officer, Police Station City Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶11

Surendra Saharan S/o Shri Balwant Saharan, By Caste Jat, Resident of Ward No. 5, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶12

Aman Rajput S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Resident of Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Ward No. 4, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶13

Kalu Ram Nayak S/o Shri Krishan, Resident of Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Ward No. 4, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶14

Surendra Kumar Pandit @ Sendu S/o Babu Lal, Resident of Village Hindor, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶15

Bajrang Rajput S/o Shri Krishan Rajput, Resident of Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Ward No. 4, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶16

Anil Kumar Punia S/o Shri Moola Ram, Resident of Ward No. 1, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶17

Ishak Mohammed @ Saku S/o Shri Mumtaz Shah, By Caste Musalman, Resident of Ward No. 2, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶18

Hussain S/o Hasan Khan, By Caste Musalman, Resident of Ward No. 2, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶19

Pooja Bavari W/o Surendra Saharan, Resident of Ward No. 5,

¶20

(2 of 5)

¶21

[CRLMP-1273/2018]

¶22

Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶23

Gadiya Nai S/o Shri Ramswaroop Nai, Resident of Ward No. , Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shardul Bishnoi

¶26

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.

¶27

For Respondent Nos.7,9 and 10 : Ms. Khushbu Agarwal

¶28

For Respondent Nos.5 and 13 : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma

¶29

Present in person : Mr. Niket Pareek, SHO Police Station, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Order

¶31

16/05/2018

¶32

Notices upon the respondent Nos.5, 7 to 11, 13 and 14 have been served.

¶33

The SHO, Police Station, Suratgarh has informed that respondent No.6 is an accused in some criminal cases and he is absconding, therefore, notices could not be served upon him, whereas respondent No.12 is in judicial custody in connection with the some criminal cases pending against him, hence, is not present.

¶34

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶35

“(1) the respondents-authorities be directed to provide Police protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶36

(2) Such other and further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

¶37

In this criminal misc. petition, it is averred that the

¶38

(3 of 5)

¶39

[CRLMP-1273/2018]

¶40

petitioners are major and belonging to different castes. They have solemnized marriage as per their own will, however, respondent No.5 who is the real brother of the petitioner No.1 and other

¶41

respondents are harassing and assaulting them and police is not taking any action against them, therefore, police authorities be directed to provide adequate security and protection to them.

¶42

It appears that in the year 2014, the petitioners have preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1015/2014 impleading the parents of the petitioner No.1 and brother of her along with certain other persons as respondents, who are also now made respondents in this petition along with some other persons, seeking similar relief.

¶43

The said criminal misc. petition No.1015/2014 was disposed of by this Court on 28.04.2014 with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar to look into the threat perception of the petitioners and take appropriate steps for security in accordance with law, if so required.

¶44

Thereafter, again the petitioners have preferred second criminal misc. petition No.370/2017 seeking similar reliefs while impleading almost all the private respondents who were earlier impleaded as respondents in the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1015/2014. The said criminal misc. petition came to be decided on 22.02.2017 by this Court with a direction to the Investigating Officer to take necessary action regarding the security of lives and liberty of the petitioners in accordance with the fact situation.

¶45

Now, again the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc.

¶46

(4 of 5)

¶47

[CRLMP-1273/2018]

¶48

petition seeking similar reliefs as prayed for by them in the earlier criminal misc. petition.

¶49

The SHO, Police Station, Suratgarh-Mr. Niket Pareek present in person has informed this Court that there exist some disputes between the petitioner No.1 and her family members. It is also informed that the petitioners are also indulged in fighting with the neighbours and from time to time complaints/FIRs were filed by the petitioners against the family members of the petitioner No.1 and FIRs have already also been filed against them at the instance of family members of the petitioner No.1 and other private persons.

¶50

The SHO, Police Station, Suratgarh, Sriganganagar has also informed this Court that after disposal of the criminal misc. petition No.370/2017 on 22.02.2017, one D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.49/2017 was also preferred by the petitioner No.2 before this Court in which pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the police had produced the petitioner No.1 in the Court and as per her desire, the Court allowed her to go with petitioner No.2.

¶51

Later on, during the pendency of the said Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner No.1 appeared before this Court and shown her willingness to go with her mother and looking to her willingness, this Court has allowed the petitioner No.1 to go with her mother while leaving the house of the petitioner No.2.

¶52

The said D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of by this court on 18.05.2017 while allowing the petitioner No.1 to go anywhere as per her will.

¶53

(5 of 5)

¶54

[CRLMP-1273/2018]

¶55

It is noticed that in this criminal misc. petition, the petitioners have not disclosed the fact about filing of D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition by the petitioner No.2 and the proceedings took place in that D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition. It is also to be noticed that in this criminal misc. petition, the averments up to the para No.1 to 12 are verbatim to the earlier criminal misc. petition, however, in further paras factum about the registration of the FIRs against them and on behalf of them subsequently has only been mentioned.

¶56

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are filing repeated criminal misc. petitions not for seeking directions from this Court to protect their life and liberties but with the intention to pressurize the police personnel to act only on the complaints filed on behalf of them and not to act on the complaints filed against them. The concealment of factum of filing of Habeas Corpus Petition by the petitioner No.2 and the willingness shown by the petitioner No.1 in that Habeas Corpus Petition, to return to her parental house reflects the conduct of the petitioners that they have not approached this Court with clean hands.

¶57

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶58

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

¶59

Taruna

Suman Saharan and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Saharan and Anr. 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

Vasudev and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Suhel Hussain Vs State and Anr.

Shabnam Vs State and Anr.

Ketan Vs State and Anr.

Sunil Vanvani Vs Smt v Eena @ Nimisha Vanvani and Ors.

Smt Pramila Vs State and Anr.