Allowed

Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2019CRLMP/1362/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to quash criminal proceedings against two accused where the principal borrower had been acquitted by the trial court. The High Court held that continuing proceedings after eight years, especially given the acquittal of the main accused and lack of recovery, would cause grave injustice and constitute an abuse of process. The petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 419/2006 were quashed. Stay application disposed.

Madan Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1362/2011

¶3

Madan Lal son of Shri Chunni Lal Jayaswal (Kalal), R/o Surajpura, Post Lotiyana, Tehsil Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶4

Bhanwar Singh son of Shri Raju Singh, by caste Rawat, R/o Nandawat Amon Ka Badiya, P.S. Bheem, District Rajsamand.

¶5

Kalu Singh son of Shri Kan Singh, by caste Rawat, R/o Uda Mana Ka Kot, P.S. Bheem, District Rajsamand.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶9

Dilip Babel son of Norat Mal, by caste Jain, Prop. Mahalaxmi Finance, Toliyan Chopar, Mahaveer Bazar, Beawar.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Choudhary for Mr. Tarun Mishra For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶13

Order

¶14

08/08/2019

¶15

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 29.03.2011 passed by learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.) No.1, Beawar, whereby Revision Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and order dated 01.03.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar, whereby charges were framed against the petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, was confirmed.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that a bus was financed to Madan Lal by Mahalaxmi Finance Company. It was alleged in the complaint that after paying two installments, Madan

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-1362/2011]

¶19

Lal sold the bus and its parts by dismantling it. It is contended that general allegations were levelled against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 of selling the parts in connivance with Madan Lal.

¶20

It is also contended that proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were stayed by High Court vide order dated 19.07.2011. Madan Lal has been acquitted by the Tirla Court vide judgment dated 12.02.2019. Copy of the judgment is placed before the Court, which is taken on record.

¶21

It is further contended that Madan Lal was borrower and no charge-sheet was filed against guarantor. Bus was recovered from Bheru Lal, he was also not made an accused in the charge-sheet. Borrower i.e. Madan Lal has been acquitted. Bus or any of its parts were not recovered from petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. The bus was recovered and was given on supurdagi to respondent No.2 on 18.07.2006. It is contended that no case is made out against the petitioners.

¶22

Counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that only two installments were paid by Madan Lal. The parts of bus were dismantled and sold by the accused-petitioners. It is also contended that petitioners have availed remedy of revision and there is bar of entertaining a Second Revision under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

I have considered the contentions. 7. The fact which is undisputed is that Madan Lal purchased a bus after taking loan from Finance Company- respondent No.2. Madan Lal has been acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 12.02.2019. Bus has been recovered and there is no recovery from the petitioners. There was only allegation in the complaint that petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 in connivance with petitioner

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-1362/2011]

¶26

No.1 are dismantling and selling parts of the bus. Bus along with its chasis has been recovered and returned to the complainant on 18.07.2006. Borrower stands acquitted. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are neither guarantors nor any recovery has been effected from them. 8. It is true that in exceptional cases, Court can exercise the inherent powers where petitioners exercised the power of Revision. Present is a case of exceptional nature, more particularly because the main accused (borrower) has been acquitted. Bus along with its chasis has been recovered and the same has been handed over to the complainant. There is no recovery from petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. In view of the same, continuation of proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 after lapse of eight years would tentamount to abuse of process of the Court and would cause grave injustice to petitioner Nos. 2 & 3.

¶27

In view of the above, the misc. petition is allowed and proceedings in Criminal Case No.419/2006 (CIS No.4927/2014) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar are quashed. Stay application stands disposed.

¶28

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶29

Simple Kumawat /03

Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

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

Prabhudayal Vs Sunita Baweria and Anr.

Govind Narayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

A. S. Rajiv S/O Shri Sekhara Panicker Aerathu Govinda Panicker Vs State of Rajasthan

Raeesuddin Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Motilal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ashok Saxena Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.