Quashed

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/O Babulal Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2020CRLMP/8018/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the taking of cognizance against an Additional Superintendent of Police for Section 166A IPC offenses. The court quashed the order as there was no evidence of disobedience or court directions breached.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Special Judge taking cognizance u/s 166A IPC against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Other proceedings under the said order shall continue.

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/O Babulal Agarwal Vs State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8018/2019

¶3

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/o Babulal Agarwal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of E-207 Bank Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Sikar Road, Jaipur Presently Posted As Addl. Sp Neem-Ka-Thana, Dist. Sikar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.

¶7

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abhinav Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

Reportable:-

23/01/2020

Notice has already been served on learned PP.

¶13

The petitioner by way of this petition assails the order dated

¶14

4.5.2019 passed by the Special Judge under POCSO Cases, Sikar whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner u/s 166(A)IPC while taking the cognizance against the accused u/s 354(A), 376(I) IPC and Section 3/4 , 7/8 POCSO Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was handed over further investigation in terms of the directions issued by the Magistrate earlier on 13.12.2018. The petitioner was holding the post of Additional S.P, Neem ka Thana, Sikar at that relevant time and submitted his report after conducting further

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-8018/2019]

¶18

investigation and recommended closing the case as the allegations were found to be false.

¶19

However, learned Special Judges POCSO cases, Sikar has , while disagreeing the final report and taking cognizance against the concerned accused, proceeded to hold that the petitioner by way of his report tried to help the accused by giving negative final report.

¶20

Learned counsel submits that there was no evidence on record where such presumption could have been drawn. Learned counsel further submits that taking cognizance u/s 166A IPC, there had to be some specific directions given by court, which he could be said to have disobeyed. So far as the directions given by the court are concerned, they were only limited to conducting the further investigation by higher officer in the rank to the SP. It is submitted that final report was earlier given by Inspector and the petitioner who was assigned further investigation by the Superintendent of Police conducted further investigation and reached to the conclusion independently that the allegations were false & concocted and filed final report.

¶21

This court finds that provision of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C read with Section 190(1) provide that Magistrate has a power to take into account the statement of witnesses which have been recorded during investigation by Investigating Officer and he can arrive to a different opinion to that of the Investigation Officer and conclusion can be drawn independently on the basis of investigation report. However, while the Magistrate can do so,

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-8018/2019]

¶24

there is no provision at that stage to take cognizance against the concerned IO.

¶25

The learned Judge while taking cognizance has however, proceeded to take cognizance against the IO. In the present petition ingredients of Section 166A, IPC are completely absent. There is no document relied upon by the concerned Judge to reach to the conclusion that any order of the court was disobeyed. There was no such disobedience and even, prima facie, as there were no no direction issued by the court the to petitioner which can be said to have been disobeyed by him. There was no occasion for the Learned Judge POCSO Cases to have taken cognizance u/s 166A IPC.

¶26

In view of above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order passed by the Special Judge POCSO Cases, Sikar so far as it relates to the petitioner for taking cognizance u/s 166A IPC is quashed and set aside. However, the other proceedings under the said order shall continue.

¶27

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶28

Anu

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/O Babulal Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/O Babulal Agarwal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyan Chand Agrawal S/O Late Shri Surajmal Agrawal B/C Agrawal/Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Radheshyam Harijan S/O Shri Gyarsi Lal Harijan B/C Harijan Vs Sua Lal Saini S/O Shri Chhitarmal Saini

Rakesh Yadav S/O Shri Kg Yadav Vs Akhilesh Sharma S/O Shri Kirti Kumar Ramratan Sharma

Kalupuri Chels Vs State of Rajasthan

Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Raghu Yadav S/O Shri Roopchand B/C Ahri Vs State of Rajasthan