Quashed

Govind Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2019CRLMP/4635/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, holding that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner after acquittal of co-accused, without fresh evidence after nine years, amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bundi in Criminal Case No.433/2012 are quashed. Stay application disposed of.

Govind Narayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4635/2015

¶3

Govind Narayan Sharma S/o SH. Ram Swaroop Sharma B/c Brahman R/o Patel Nagar Deoli Distt. Tonk.

¶4

Accused-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma For State : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

07/08/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 03.06.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bundi, whereby Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 03.03.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bundi in Criminal Case No.433/2012 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner was confirmed.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a retired bank employee. He had sanctioned Kisan Credit Card loan to certain farmers. F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant alleging that loan has been sanctioned for the property, possession of which was with the complainant. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.11.2010.

¶14

It is contended that petitioner was arrested by the Police but charge-sheet was filed only against farmers on 21.08.2012.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-4635/2015]

¶17

It is contended that farmers have been acquitted by the Court.

¶18

It is also contended that at the time of filing of the chargesheet dated 21.08.2012, as per which offence was made out against the present petitioner also but proceedings against him were kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 6. It is contended that petitioner had given loan to the farmers after verifying their ownership details and farmers have been acquitted by the Court. No fresh material was collected under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is thus contended by counsel that continuation of proceedings against the Branch Manager who has retired would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court.

¶19

I have considered the contentions and have carefully perused the charge-sheet as well as the judgment by which farmers have been acquitted by the Appellate Court. 8. The allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioner is that he had sanctioned loan to the co-accused without verifying as to who was in possession of the land. Since, the farmers have been acquitted and they have been found to be recorded tenant of the property, on which KCC loan was given, also taking note of the fact that no fresh evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer so as to file challan against the petitioner.

¶20

In “ Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan 2003(3) WLN 376 ” co-accused were acquitted by the Court. High Court held that Section 120-B of I.P.C. cannot be made out against the petitioner and then quashed the proceedings.

¶21

There being no fresh material collected by the Investigating Officer, non filing of the challan with the other co-accused who have been acquitted and now proceedings against the petitioner

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-4635/2015]

¶24

after nine years of lodging of the F.I.R., would tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.

¶25

Proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bundi in Criminal Case No.433/2012, are quashed.

¶26

Stay application stands disposed.

¶27

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶28

AMIT KUMAR /9

Govind Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Siyaram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Chandan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ajay Balk Carriar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Prabhudayal Vs Sunita Baweria and Anr.

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

Sunita Maheshwari W/O Late Sh. Ramgopal Maheshwari B/C Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan