Allowed

Prem Chand Raghuvanshi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2019CRLMP/2940/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of FIR and charge sheet filed under IPC sections. Court quashed proceedings as the second FIR was filed late after a prior negative report and continuing it against a retiree constituted abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings pending in criminal case No. 72/2012 were quashed and the stay application was disposed of.

Prem Chand Raghuvanshi Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2940/2015

¶3

Prem Chand Raghuvanshi s/o Shri Ramkaran retired inspector of police, Dudhwalon ka mohalla, ward no 34, Chhawani, Tonk, rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan through additional chief secretary department of home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur

¶7

Director General of police, Rajasthan Jaipur

¶8

Investigating Officer/SHO, police station Manak Chowk, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶12

Order

¶13

14/08/2019

¶14

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 80/2012 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and for quashing of charge sheet No. 38/2012 filed by the police for offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as a police constable in the category of Scheduled Castes. Thereafter, a notification was issued wherein Nayak was included ST category. Petitioner applied for the post of ASI, Intelligence Bureau in the ST category on 10.03.1983 and was selected as police constable.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CRLMP-2940/2015]

¶18

Nanag Ram Verma lodged an FIR No. 298/1995 alleging that the petitioner has changed his category from SC to ST. Police after due investigation submitted negative final report and the FR was accepted by the Court. It is contended that on similar lines just prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner another FIR No. 80/2012 was lodged at the same Police Station by the police department. Police has now submitted charge sheet in the second FIR.

¶19

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed misc. petition No. 1298/2012 wherein Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 11/05/2012 disposed of the petition with direction to the investigating officer to investigate the matter in light of the earlier FIR No. 298/1995 in which police has submitted final report. It is contended that the investigating officer ignored the order dated 11/05/2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court and without taking into account the earlier FIR and the negative FR submitted by the police has filed challan against the petitioner.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AmitBhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.: 2013(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 753, Nenu Devi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: 2012(4) Cri. L.R. 1855 and Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.: 2013(4) SCC (Cri.) 503.

¶21

It is contended that petitioner had applied as a member of Scheduled Tribes way back in the year 1983, present FIR has been lodged in the year 2012 after a lapse of 29 years.

¶22

Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition.

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CRLMP-2940/2015]

¶25

It is contended that police after due investigation has come to the conclusion that offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner and police has already submitted charge sheet against the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner was appointed as a member of Scheduled Castes, he had no right to apply as a member of Scheduled Tribes.

¶26

I have considered the contentions. 10. From perusal record, it is not in dispute that an earlier FIR was lodged by Nanag Ram Verma bearing FIR No. 298/1995 wherein police submitted negative final report. In the negative final report earlier submitted by the same Police Station, it was mentioned that as many as 11 seats were reserved for SC and 8 seats were reserved for ST, the seats reserved for ST were lesser in number, hence, there was no dishonest intention of the petitioner. It was also mentioned in the earlier negative final report that as per roster for Scheduled Castes seat No. 4, 12 and 13 were reserved and for Scheduled Tribes seat No. 20, 29 and 31 were reserved, the chances of selection as a member of Scheduled Castes were more as compared to Scheduled Tribes. Hence, at the most considering it as a bonafide mistake, Nayak being mentioned in both list as SC and ST. Police submitted negative final report, which was accepted by the Court.

¶27

In the present FIR similar allegation is levelled against the petitioner of having applied for the post as ST category. The present FIR has been lodged after a lapse of 29 years, at the verge of retirement of the petitioner. Investigating Officer has not complied with the directions given by the Court in misc. petition No. 1298/2012 and without considering negative final report given

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CRLMP-2940/2015]

¶30

by the same Police Station for the same offence has submitted challan against the petitioner.

¶31

Apex Court in AmitBhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (supra) has held that second FIR in respect of same offence is not permissible when entire offence was covered in the first FIR. In Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court held that second FIR is not permissible for the same incident. Since, the present FIR has been lodged after a lapse of 29 years and in the earlier FIR on similar allegations negative final report was submitted and was accepted by the Court. There is no material to come to the conclusion that petitioner with an intent to cheat the department has submitted application posing himself as a ST candidate, hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, who has retired, would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court.

¶32

The criminal misc. petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Proceedings pending before the Court below in criminal case No. 72/2012 is quashed. Stay application stands disposed.

¶33

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶34

MADAN MEENA /6

Prem Chand Raghuvanshi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand Raghuvanshi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Surajmal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Gyan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sultan Singh Meena and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P. and Anr.

Hari Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dataram Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Guljhari Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.