Dismissed

Vijay Rawal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2019CRLMP/826/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-order judgment dismisses multiple criminal miscellaneous petitions filed for quashing several FIRs under Sections 420, 409, 406, 120-B IPC. The opposing counsel sought discharge for alleged misrepresentation, but the court found sufficient material evidence of active involvement and involvement in financial transactions of over two crores, thus finding no case for quashing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vijay Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 911/2019

¶4

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Digvijay Singh Sonigra S/o Phool Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village And Post Boya, Police Station Bali, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2317/2017

¶13

¶14

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, B/c-Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi, Raj.

¶15

Smt. Santosh W/o Vijay Rawal, B/c-Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi, Raj.

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

¶19

Anil Joshi S/o Jethamal Joshi, B/c Brahmin, R/o Housing Board Colony, Sirohi Raj.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2318/2017

¶22

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, B/c-Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi, Raj.

¶23

Smt. Santosh W/o Vijay Rawal, B/c-Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi, Raj.

¶24

----Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Neetu Purohit W/o Rajesh Purohit, B/c Brahmin, R/o Veer Mohalla, Vyas Park, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur Raj.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 802/2019

¶30

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, Pwd

¶31

(2 of 8)

¶32

[CRLMP-911/2019]

¶33

Colony, Opp Bsnl Office, Sirohi

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶37

Hitesh Kumar S/o Laxman Ji Prajapat, Village And Post Office Pindwara, Teh Pindwara, Dist Sirohi

¶38

----Respondents

¶39

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 812/2019

¶40

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal , R/o Pwd Colony , Opposite Bsnl Office , Sirohi , (Raj)

¶41

----Petitioner

¶42

Versus

¶43

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Jitendra Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, B/c Gurjar, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Abu Road, Distt. Sirohi (Raj)

¶44

----Respondents

¶45

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 826/2019

¶46

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, Pwd Colony, Opp Bsnl Office, Sirohi

¶47

----Petitioner

¶48

Versus

¶49

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶50

Hitesh Kumar S/o Chhoga Ram, Main Road, Near To Bijalighar, Takhatgarh, Pali

¶51

----Respondents

¶52

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 875/2019

¶53

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi

¶54

----Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶57

Smt. Ranju Devi W/o Rajesh Mali, B/c Mali, R/o Kumhar Bass, Nai Dhanari, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi

¶58

----Respondents

¶59

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 910/2019

¶60

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi (Raj.)

¶61

----Petitioner

¶62

Versus

¶63

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶64

(3 of 8)

¶65

[CRLMP-911/2019]

¶66

Mohammed Aslam S/o Mohammed Ayub, B/c Musalman, R/o Chhipo Ka Bass, Bali, Tehsil Bali, Police Station Bali, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Raj.)

¶67

----Respondents

¶68

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 914/2019

¶69

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi

¶70

----Petitioner

¶71

Versus

¶72

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶73

Surendra Singh Sonigra S/o Phool Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village And Post Boya, Police Station Bali, Tehsil Bali, District Pali

¶74

----Respondents

¶75

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 939/2019

¶76

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal , R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office , Sirohi (Raj)

¶77

----Petitioner

¶78

Versus

¶79

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶80

Kumari Mumal Kunwar Sonigra D/o Ajit Singh, Is Being Minor , Through Her Father Ajit Singh , B/c Rajput , R/o Village And Post Boya , P.s. Bali , Tehsil Bali , Distt. Pali (Raj)

¶81

----Respondents

¶82

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 940/2019

¶83

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal , R/o Pwd Colony , Opposite Bsnl Office , Sirohi , (Raj.)

¶84

----Petitioner

¶85

Versus

¶86

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶87

Ankur Agarwal S/o Jayanti Lal, B/c Agarwal , R/o Sunset Road, Mount Abu , Distt. Sirohi (Raj)

¶88

----Respondents

¶89

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 941/2019

¶90

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi (Raj.)

¶91

----Petitioner

¶92

Versus

¶93

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶94

(4 of 8)

¶95

[CRLMP-911/2019]

¶96

Smt. Bhanwar Kunwar Sonigra W/o Ajit Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village And Post Boya, Police Station Bali, Teh. Bali, Dist. Pali (Raj.).

¶97

----Respondents

¶98

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 942/2019

¶99

Vijay Rawal S/o Mohan Lal Rawal, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Rawal, R/o Pwd Colony, Opposite Bsnl Office, Sirohi (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶104

Deepak Agarwal S/o Late Shri Harish Chand, B/c Agarwal, R/o House No. 5, Choudhary Colony, Abu Road City,

¶105

District Sirohi

¶106

----Respondents

¶107

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶108

: Mr. Girish Sankhla.

¶109

: Mr. Farzand Ali, GA cum AAG assisted by Ms Rajlaxmi Singh, PP for the State.

¶110

Mr. Surendra Singh, CI, SPO-Pali, Mr. Rajendra Singh CI-SPO Sirohi, Mr. Sheskaran, CI, Jodhpur &

¶111

Mr. Sajjan Singh, ASI, PS Bagdi, Pali present in person.

¶112

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶113

Order

¶114

10/07/2019

¶115

The present Misc. Petitions involving identical facts are being heard together with the consent of the counsel for the parties and decided by this common order.

¶116

The above noted Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed for quashing F.I.R. No.0193/2017 registered at Police Station- Falna District Pali for the offences under sections 420, 409, 406, 109 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.911/2019), F.I.R. No.077/2017 registered at Police Station- Sirohi for the offences under sections

¶117

(5 of 8)

¶118

[CRLMP-911/2019]

¶119

406, 420 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.2317/2017), F.I.R. No.053/2017 registered at Police Station- Khanda Falsa District Jodhpur East for the offences under sections 406, 420 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.2318/2017), F.I.R. No.0288/2017 registered at Police Station- Pindwara Distrit Sirohi for the offences under sections 406, 420 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.802/2019), F.I.R. No.0147/2017 registered at Police Station- Abu Road City, District Sirohi for the offences under sections 420, 406, 409 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.812/2019), F.I.R. No.0157/2017 registered at Police Station- Takhatgarh, District Pali for the offences under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.826/2019), F.I.R. No.0084/2017 registered at Police StationSwaroopganj District Sirohi for the offences under sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.875/2019), F.I.R. No.0141/2017 registered at Police Station- Falna District Pali for the offences under sections 420, 406, 409 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.910/2019), F.I.R. No.0195/2017 registered at Police StationFalna District Pali for the offences under sections 409, 406, 420, 109 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.914/2019), F.I.R. No.0194/2017 registered at Police Station- Falna District Pali for the offences under sections 409, 406, 420, 109 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.939/2019), F.I.R. No.0037/2017 registered at Police StationMount Abu District Sirohi for the offences under sections 420 & 406 of IPC (Crl.MP No.940/2019), F.I.R. No.0166/2017 registered at Police Station- Falna District Pali for the offences under sections 420, 409, 406, 109 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.941/2019) & F.I.R. No.0146/2017 registered at Police Station- Abu Road City, District Sirohi for the offences under sections 420, 406, 409 & 120-B of IPC (Crl.MP No.942/2019).

¶120

(6 of 8)

¶121

[CRLMP-911/2019]

¶122

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is not holding any position in the Sudarum Credit Cooperative Society Limited against which irregularities in the financial transactions have been been reported in the above noted first information reports. He further submits that because the petitioner No.1 is husband of petitioner No.2 who was director in the above credit Cooperative Society till 2014, the proceedings against him are being resorted to.

¶123

As far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he stated that although she was Director in the Society till the year 2014 but thereafter she did not have any connection with the Sudarum Credit Cooperative Society Limited, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner No.2 for committing the offences alleged in the FIRs.

¶124

By way of filing an additional affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record certain documents under the signatures of Managing Director of the society in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner No.1 Vijay Rawal is neither holding any post in the society nor he is member of the society. He also did not owe any loan from the society till 28.04.2017. In support of his arguments, the counsel has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court reported in 1995 CRI.L.J. 934 (M/s Tonesta Electronics & Another Vs The Assistant Collector of Central Excise).

¶125

Per Contra, learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General has submitted the factual report as well as other documents relating to the investigation showing that the petitioners were the only persons who appeared in public, publicized the ventures of the society and collected money from

¶126

(7 of 8)

¶127

[CRLMP-911/2019]

¶128

general public by misrepresenting the facts. He further submits that the employees of the Society have categorically stated in their statements that they used to receive instructions from the petitioner No.1. It is also contended that the statements of employees show that they were recruited by the petitioner No.1. The counsel further submits on the opening of number of branches

¶129

of the society at different places, the petitioner No.1 was present having his active participation in the affairs and opening of the branches of the society. Petitioner No.2 was managing the affairs of the society being a director of the society.

¶130

Mr. Farzand Ali, learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General further submits that there are transactions (as per statements of accounts of bank) on more than one occasions showing involvement of amount of more than two crores between the petitioner No.1 and the society.

¶131

Having considered the submissions made at the bar and going through the factual report as well as relevant papers of investigation produced before this court, I am of the view that there is sufficient material against the petitioners to show their involvement in the matter as money transactions to the tune of more than rupees two crores from the society have taken place and statements of the employees showing that they were recruited/ appointed by the petitioner No.1 and clearly show connectivity of the present petitioners for the offences alleged in the above noted FIRs. On going through the investigation papers, prima facie it is clear that the petitioners were closely involved in managing the affairs of the society against whom the financial irregularities involving huge amount of money are alleged in the FIRS. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners

¶132

(8 of 8)

¶133

[CRLMP-911/2019]

¶134

is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the investigation papers also establish involvement of the present petitioners in the affairs of the society and the allegations leveled in the first information report.

¶135

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its authoritative pronouncement in the case of State of Haryana v/s Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 AIR 604 wherein para 9.1 of the judgment has held as under:-

¶136

“9.1 The entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation has not proceeded with except some preliminary effort taken on the date of the allegation of the case. The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and placed before the Court on the basis of which alone the Court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of mala fides. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made maliciously, the investigation will say so. At this stage, when there are only allegations and recriminations but no evidence, this Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials at present available. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. Even assuming that the complainant has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected” .

¶137

In view of discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that no case for quashing the FIRs is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Petitions are dismissed being bereft of merits.

¶138

The stay petitions also stand dismissed.

¶139

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶140

48 to 50 & 52 to 61 -Anil Singh/-

Vijay Rawal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vijay Rawal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Vishnoi Vs State

Ashiq Khan Rangrej Vs State

Narayan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan