Dismissed

Mukundsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2021CRLMP/1408/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal miscellaneous petitions, the High Court observed that original record verification by officers was necessary due to a controversy over correct pleadings in earlier proceedings. The court held that such detailed examination does not justify interference with the investigation's conclusion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and dismissed both petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for quashing of FIR and order under Section 37 Police Act dismissed along with pending applications.

Mukundsingh Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1408/2021

¶3

Mukundsingh S/o Sh. Nihalsingh, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Majhabi Sikh, R/o 1149, Dhani Soma Singh Ward No. 1 Kariwala P.s. Raniya, Dist. Sirsa Hariyana.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Vikram Singh S/o Rawatsingh (Jhala), Aged About 38 Years, Profession Nokri, R/o 2/1310 Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board Jodhpur Presently Stamp Reporter Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2344/2019

¶11

Mandar Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 72 Years, B/c Jat Sikh , R/o 45 -Gg, Srikaranpur , Distt. Sriganganagar

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sushil Prajapat Mr. Hemant Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. MS Bhati, PP assisted by Mr. Sukhram, SI, P.S. Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Mr. Ajit Kumar Godara,Tehsildar Sri Karanpur, Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Girdawar, Sri Karanpur, Mr. Dalbag Singh, Revenue Patwari, Sri Karanpur, Mr. Jaskaur Singh, President Jal Upbhokta Sangam, Kharla, Sri Karanpur, Mr. Mukhram, Jiledar, Irrigation Department,Sri Karanpur.

¶17

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

(2 of 5)

[CRLMP-1408/2021]

Order

Reserved on 06/09/2021 Pronounced on 10/09/2021

¶22

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.

¶23

In CRLMP No. 1408/2021 :

¶24

At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no offence against the present petitioner has been found to be made out, which is also reflected in the factual report furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor before this Court. The said factual report is taken on record.

¶25

In light of such submission, the present petition has become infructuous, and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶26

In CRLMP No. 2344/2019 :

¶27

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the proceedings relating to and arising out of FIR No.274/2015 registered at Policed Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur as well as the order dated 02.03.2019 passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby the warrants have been issued against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Police Act.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire proceedings relating to aforementioned FIR No.274/2015, as on an application having been preferred by the present petitioner being S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.1282/2013 (Mandar Singh @ Mahendra Singh Vs.

¶29

(3 of 5)

¶30

[CRLMP-1408/2021]

¶31

State of Rajasthan & Ors.), this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 04.05.2015 had directed then then Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Hon’ble Court to lodge an FIR against Mukand Singh at the concerned police station, whereafter, the present FIR was registered against Mukand Singh. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the present petitioner himself was an instrumental in lodging of the FIR; however, after investigation, the said Mukand Singh was absolved of all the charges, and the concerned investigating authority arrived at a conclusion that the offence is made out against the present petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and the report of the police reveal that the process of law has been abused as the petitioner, who himself was the victim, has been converted into an accused, leading to gross miscarriage of justice.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8515/2012 was filed by Mukand Singh against the present petitioner, and during the proceedings, the present petitioner moved an application before this Hon’ble Court under Sections 195(b) & 340 Cr.P.C. for taking appropriate legal action against Mukand Singh, as he had filed fraudulent pleadings before the Hon’ble Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that after hearing both the parties, this Hon’ble Court had directed the FIR to be lodged vide order dated 04.05.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.1282/2013, as mentioned above, whereafter, the FIR was registered and the investigation commenced.

¶35

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1408/2021]

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the documents dated 23.09.2012 & 03.09.2012 and a Khasra Girdawari, resulted into the whole dispute.

¶37

Mr. MS Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor alongwith all the concerned officers present in person before this Court opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶38

In this case, this Hon’ble Court had passed the following interim order on 25.11.2019:

¶39

“Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call the Investigating Officer.

¶40

List on 16.12.2019, as prayed.

¶41

In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the order dated 02.03.2019, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, shall remain stayed qua the petitioner till next date of hearing.”

¶42

Upon such order being passed, Mr. Sukhram (I.O.), SI, Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur, Mr. Ajit Kumar Godara,Tehsildar Sri Karanpur, Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Girdawar, Sri Karanpur, Mr. Dalbag Singh, Revenue Patwari, Sri Karanpur, Mr. Jaskaur Singh, President Jal Upbhokta Sangam, Kharla, Sri Karanpur and Mr. Mukhram, Jiledar, Irrigation Department, Sri Karanpur remained present in person before this Court on 06.09.2021, and this Court heard all the parties at length and carefully perused the material available on record.

¶43

After perusing the record, it is clear that the documents furnished by Mukand Singh before this Court in the aforementioned writ petition were correct, whereas the documents produced by the petitioner were found to be incorrect.

¶44

(5 of 5)

¶45

[CRLMP-1408/2021]

¶46

The record (in-original) was brought before this Court and the same was carefully examined.

¶47

In view of this Court, the documents dated 23.09.2012 & 03.09.2012 and the Khasra Girdawari being verified from the record, does not absolve the present petitioner of the charges levelled against him.

¶48

In the inherent jurisdiction of 482 Cr.P.C., ordinarily, this kind of a detailed examination of the original record with the help and personal presence of the concerned officers, ought not to be made, but looking into the controversy involved in regard to correctness of the pleadings in an earlier matter filed before this Hon’ble Court and the fact that the present FIR has been lodged pursuant to the aforementioned order of this Hon’ble Court, the matter was viewed very seriously.

¶49

Thus, after due adjudication and hearing the parties at length, this Court is of the view that conclusion of the investigation in this case does not call for any interference by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶50

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

¶51

applications also stand dismissed.

¶52

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶53

SKant/-

Mukundsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukundsingh 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

Ramdeen Patel Vs State

Dev Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Dev Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kandarp Kumar Vs State

Sheetal Tejwani Vs State of Rajasthan

Pathik Nagar Vs State of Rajasthan