Dismissed

Ramakant Sharma v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2018CRLMP/2328/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking to quash an FIR alleging extortion and criminal intimidation. The Court held that the FIR disclosed prima facie offences under IPC, adhering to Supreme Court precedents, and any claim of mala fides should be investigated rather than through quashing.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition and the stay petition were dismissed; the FIR could not be quashed.

Ramakant Sharma Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2328/2018

¶3

Ramakant Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gangadtalai, Tehsil Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan

¶7

Smt. Shobha Rawat Wo Shri Tol Sing, R/o Koi Doban, Police Station Sajjangarh, District Banswara (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh For Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

03/08/2018

¶13

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.167/2018 dated 23.06.2018 of Police Station Kushalgarh District Banswara for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 504 and 506 IPC.

¶14

The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 wherein it is alleged by her that she was selected as Coordinator in Sanitation Water and Community Health Project, Banswara through a placement agency on 01.02.2014 and the petitioner being a Coordinator demanded Rs.50,000/- from her and when she refused to pay the same, he threatened her. It is alleged that on 14.02.2014, the petitioner extorted Rs.20,000/-

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-2328/2018]

¶17

from her while threatening her that he would remove her from service. It is also alleged that the said Rs.20,000/- was paid by her in the bank account of the petitioner. It is further alleged by the respondent No.2 that now the petitioner is harassing her and demanding Rs.30,000/- while threatening her. It is also alleged that the petitioner is abusing her from time to time.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned FIR is false and lodged at the instance of Project Officer, Sanitation Water and Community Health Project, Banswara. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier in the year 2013 and thereafter in the years 2017, the petitioner was transferred illegally and being aggrieved with that the petitioner preferred writ petitions before this Court wherein the said transfer orders were stayed then the department has withdrawn all those orders but instigated the respondent No.2 to file this false FIR against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thereafter, prayed that the impugned FIR is lodged due to mala fide and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR do constitute a prima facie offence and, therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed.

¶20

The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. V/s. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. V/s. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 and in later decisions has held

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMP-2328/2018]

¶23

that if from bare reading of the FIR, prima facie case is made out, then FIR cannot be quashed.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR do constitute a prima facie offence, hence, the same cannot be quashed as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred cases.

¶25

So far as contention of the petitioner is that the impugned FIR has been lodged against him due to mala fide because he has challenged his transfer orders before this Court and the same has been stayed and annoyed with this the department has instigated the complainant to file FIR against the petitioner, are concerned, it is for the Investigating Agency to look into this aspect of the matter and the petitioner can very well join the investigation and submit his side of story to the Investigating Officer. It is expected that the Investigating Officer shall consider the version of the petitioner before concluding the investigation and shall conduct fair and impartial investigation in the matter.

¶26

With these observations, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

¶27

Stay petition is also dismissed.

¶28

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶29

Abhishek Kumar S.No.185

Ramakant Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Sharma v. State

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

Smt Parsi Vs State

Munni Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Lal Vs State and Ors.

Mohammed Yusuf Sheikh Vs State and Anr.

Suman and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Abhay Bharunt Vs Smt Pooja