Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2019CRLMP/4822/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition, quashing pending criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The court quashed the order due to abuse of process, ignoring an unsolicited positive FIR to counter the petitioners, ignoring a negative police report, and the lapse of eight years. Sections 397 Cr.P.C. were considered.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4822/2015 allowed; Criminal Case No. 245/2013 quashed; stay application disposed.

Hari Kishan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4822/2015

¶3

Hari Kishan Son of Badri

¶4

Hukam Chand @ Hukma Son of Ramkuwar

¶5

Jagdish Son of Shri Hukam Chand

¶6

Om Prakash Son of Shri Hukam Chand

¶7

Ramesh Son of Hari Kishan

¶8

Rajendra Son of Hari Kishan

¶9

Smt. Kamla Wife of Hukam Chand

¶10

All by caste Mali, Residents of Kushtala, Police Station

¶11

Rawanjana Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶15

------Respondent

¶16

Heera Lal Son of Shri Ramgopal, by caste Mali, Resident of Kushtala, Police Station Rawanjana Dunger, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj,.)

¶17

----Complainant-Respondent

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashindra Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr.Tarun Jain For State Mr.F.R.Meena,PP

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶20

Judgment / Order

¶21

14/08/2019

¶22

Accused-petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 04.07.2013 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur whereby she took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 354 IPC.

¶23

(2 of 4)

¶24

[CRLMP-4822/2015]

¶25

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the incident took place on 07.12.2011 when the complainant was putting live wires to transmit electric current on the poles of his field. An objection was raised by one of the accused-petitioners whereupon a dispute started, many persons sustained injuries for which FIR was lodged on the same day. It is contended that after lapse of two months complainant filed a complaint before the Court, which was sent for registration of FIR and FIR was registered on 20.02.2012. It is contended that in the FIR filed on behalf of the petitioners-side complainant and other persons have been convicted and have been given benefit of probation.

¶26

It is contended that police after due investigation submitted negative final report. Court on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance. The Court has not considered the negative final report and has not given any reason why it is disagreeing with the negative final report.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006 (2) RCC 853).

¶28

Counsel for the respondent has opposed the criminal misc. petition. It is contended that petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision. A second revision is barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶29

Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Jai Kishan Khandelwal & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. (S.B.Criminal Misc.1668/2007) decided on 31.01.2011.

¶30

I have considered the contentions and have perused the negative final report.

¶31

(3 of 4)

¶32

[CRLMP-4822/2015]

¶33

The date of incident was 07.12.2011, complaint was filed after two months on 07.02.2012. Police has come to the conclusion that the injuries were sustained by petitioner No.5 and after challan was filed in the FIR lodged by petitioner-party, to counter blast the same, complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of two months. It is pertinent to note that the incident took place when the complainant-party were putting electric wires in their field, an objection was raised on behalf of the accused-party on which they were subjected to beating on which FIR was lodged on the same day by the petitioners-party and the complainantparty were charge-sheeted and ultimately convicted by the Court and have also given benefit of probation. The court below has not discussed the negative final report and has not assigned any reason why it has disbelieved the negative final report.

¶34

In Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal (supra) High Court has held that if a protest petition is allowed, Courts are required to discuss the negative final report and assigned reason why it is disagreeing with the negative final report.

¶35

It is true that second revision is barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. and in exceptional cases Court can invoke its inherent powers and tantamounts to abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice.

¶36

Present is the case where complainant-party stands convicted and the complaint was filed after they were chargesheeted, as a means to counter-blast the FIR lodged by the petitioners. The delay in lodging the complaint is not explained by the complainant. The dispute took place on the spur of moment and complainant-party have been convicted and given benefit of probation. Police after due investigation has submitted negative

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CRLMP-4822/2015]

¶39

final report. Court without assigning any reasons for discarding the negative final report has proceeded against the petitioners after a lapse of eight years. The proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of Court and cause grave injustice to the petitioners.

¶40

In view of the same, criminal misc. petition is allowed and proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.245/2013 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur are quashed. Stay application also stands disposed.

¶41

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶42

TEEKAM KHANCHANDANI /8

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Prem Chand Raghuvanshi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Dataram Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Guljhari Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.