Dismissed

Jagdish Kumar Jingar v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2021CRLMP/1369/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking quashing of lower court orders to proceed with a criminal trial. The court held that since a prima facie case was established and prior appellate orders did not absolve the charges, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Jagdish Kumar Jingar Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1368/2021

¶3

Jagdish Kumar Jingar s/o Sh. Ashulal aged 59 years, b/c Jingar, r/o Bhinmal District Jalore, At present Senior Manager, the Jalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Main Branch – Jalore, District Jalore Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Pp

¶7

Jog Singh s/o Chiman Singh, the then Branch Manager, Jalore Central Cooperative Ltd. Branch Sayala District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1369/2021

Jagdish Kumar Jingar

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1370/2021

Jagdish Kumar Jingar

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1371/2021

Jagdish Kumar Jingar

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	D.N. Yadav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Singh PP
	Mr.	Tara Prakash Vyas

¶29

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶30

Order

¶31

(2 of 7)

¶32

Reserved on 15/09/2021 Pronounced on 18/09/2021

¶33

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned

¶34

These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶35

In CRLMP No.1368/2021 :

¶36

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is prayed before this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to call for the record bearing original criminal case No.864/2011 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhinmal District Jalore and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner be pleased to admit this misc. petition quash the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the revisional court as well as order dated 8.2.2019 passed by trial court by quashing the total proceedings pending before trial court or pass such orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the highest interest of justice.”

¶37

In CRLMP No.1369/2021 :

¶38

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is prayed before this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to call for the record bearing original criminal case No.649/2011 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhinmal District Jalore and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner be pleased to admit this misc. petition quash the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the revisional court as well as order dated 8.2.2019 passed by trial court by quashing the total proceedings pending before trial court or pass such

¶39

(3 of 7)

¶40

orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the highest interest of justice.”

¶41

In CRLMP No.1370/2021 :

¶42

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is prayed before this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to call for the record bearing original criminal case No.671/2011 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhinmal District Jalore and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner be pleased to admit this misc. petition quash the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the revisional court as well as order dated 8.2.2019 passed by trial court by quashing the total proceedings pending before trial court or pass such orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the highest interest of justice.”

¶43

In CRLMP No.1371/2021 :

¶44

“In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is prayed before this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to call for the record bearing original criminal case No.665/2011 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhinmal District Jalore and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner be pleased to admit this misc. petition quash the order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the revisional court as well as order dated 8.2.2019 passed by trial court by quashing the total proceedings pending before trial court or pass such orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the highest interest of justice.”

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Joint

¶46

Registrar, Rajasthan Cooperative Societies, Branch Jodhpur conducted an enquiry under sub-sections (5) & (6) of Section 55 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 in the year 2009 regarding certain irregularities, which were pointed out in the

¶47

(4 of 7)

¶48

Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch Dhumbriya pertaining to the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner being Nodal Officer, Central Cooperative Bank, Main Branch Jalore was away from the Branch in question and was also not named in the FIRs in question.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since the present petitioner was not having any role in the alleged crime, therefore, he has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in this case.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the charge-sheet initially submitted, one Bhagirath Bishnoi, Babulal Cashier and Krishan Kumar were found responsible for commission of the offence in question regarding specimen signatures of one Buta Ram, Anda Ram, Rana Ram, Hara Ram, Riga Ram, Atma Ram, Bhava Ram, Babulal, Bhala Ram, Masra Ram, Mangla Ram, Bagda Ram, Manga Ram and Prabhu Ram, whereupon an FSL was conducted; however, after the investigation, which remained pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., was completed, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the year 2012, without considering the record, the concerned authority granted the prosecution sanction against the petitioner in connection with FIR Nos.21/2009, 22/2009, 03/2010, and 29/2010 registered at Police Station Bagora, District Jalore for the

¶53

(5 of 7)

¶54

offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner thereafter, filed applications under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which were rejected by the learned trial court vide the impugned orders dated 08.02.2019, and the revisions preferred against the said orders were also rejected vide the impugned orders dated 31.10.2020.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has already retired, and has been unnecessarily implicated as an accused in this case, even when he was actually having no role in the crime in question.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 130 and Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. VS. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr., reported in AIR 1998 SC 2796 , while submitting that after the departmental enquiry, the criminal proceedings are not warranted.

¶58

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petitions.

¶59

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against two

¶60

(6 of 7)

¶61

consecutive orders passed by the learned courts below, which are well reasoned and there is no illegality in the said orders.

¶62

The stage, at which the petitioner is seeking intervention of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has very limited scope, and once the two consecutive courts, on the basis of the record, held that prima facie case against the present petitioner is made out, then at this stage, any interference of this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted. Moreover, there is no issue regarding jurisdiction or any legal principle involved in this case, for which any interference with the impugned orders, at this stage, can be made. As regards a conclusion pertaining to the innocence or guilt of the present petitioner in connection with the crime in question, this Court is of the opinion that in the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such conclusion is not warranted.

¶63

This Court has also kept into observation the fact that though pursuant to the departmental enquiry, initially the petitioner was found guilty and a punishment was also imposed upon him, but subsequently vide the appellate order, the same was set aside, for want of proper enquiry and on count of passing of a non-speaking order. However, it is weighing in the mind of this Court that the appellate authority has not absolved the present petitioner of the charges levelled against him, but has given a liberty to the department to re-initiate the enquiry against the present petitioner.

¶64

The precedent laws cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do not apply in this case, as in the present case, prima

¶65

(7 of 7)

¶66

facie offence has been found to be made out against the present

¶67

petitioner, and the standard of the burden of proof required being different, both the proceedings i.e. departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings, are quite separable, in the present facts and circumstances.

¶68

Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶69

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶70

SKant/-

Jagdish Kumar Jingar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kumar Jingar v. State

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

Nirmal Deora Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet Singh @ Jitu Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Ramjan Vs State

Priyanka Vs State of Rajasthan

Navalram Vs State

Jagdish Kumar Jingar Vs State