Dismissed

Rameshwar Singh Burdak S/O Shri Jagannath Prasad Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2022CRLMP/10272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 384 IPC, holding that the allegations disclose a cognizable offence requiring investigation and that the court cannot conduct a roving enquiry at this stage.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Liberty given to file representation before the Investigating Officer.

Rameshwar Singh Burdak S/O Shri Jagannath Prasad Jat, Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10272/2022

¶3

Rameshwar Singh Burdak S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad Jat, R/o 42 B, Vivek Vihar Kishorepura Hathoj Kalwar District Jaipur.

¶4

Ramsingh Rajawat S/o Shri Hanuman Singh, R/o Gomti Apartment, Block B-501, Sector 18 Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Sho Police Station Kalwad, Jaipur West Jaipur.

¶9

Suresh Kumar Choudhary S/o Nathu Lal Choudhary, R/o Nadi Wali Dhani Sinwar, Bindyaka, Jaipur West, Rajasthan.

¶10

Ranvijay Singh Saharan S/o Shri Ramprasad Saharan, R/o 235 Officers Campus Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma-PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

14/12/2022

¶16

Instant petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 419/2022 registered with Police Station Kalwad, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Section 384 IPC.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are media persons and the complainant published certain advertisement in the newspaper of the petitioners, when the entire money of the advertisement was not given by the

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMP-10272/2022]

¶20

complainant and when the payment was demand then the complainant party threatened the petitioner for which FIR No. 698/2022 was registered against the complainant side. Counsel submits that in counter blast to the aforesaid FIR, instant FIR has been lodged with absurd allegations. Counsel submits that FIR lodged in counter blast can be quashed as it has been upheld by this Court in the case of Shivlal Joshi Vs. State of Rajashtan and Anr. reported in 2010(4) WLC 588. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, instant FIR be quashed.

¶21

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the contents of FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and the defence put forward by the accused persons cannot be entertained by this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and defence of the accused persons cannot be looked at this stage, so interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶22

Heard, considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

¶23

After going through the material, it appears that the allegations levelled in the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence and the matter requires investigation. While exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC., this Court is not supposed to give roving enquiry and embark upon a probe to ascertain genuineness and reliability of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Certainly, it would surely be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it proper to interfere in the course of investigation.

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file appropriate representation with documentary evidence before the Investigating Officer.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMP-10272/2022]

¶27

The petitioner may file a representation along with the documents before the Investigating Officer who shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶28

In case the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusions that a cognizance offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall issue 15 days notice to the petitioner as required under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

¶29

The criminal misc. petition as also the stay application stands disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Ashu/30

Rameshwar Singh Burdak S/O Shri Jagannath Prasad Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Singh Burdak S/O Shri Jagannath Prasad Jat, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monika Kumawat D/O Late Sh. Prabhat Kumawat, W/O Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Swati Gupta Wife of Shri Sunil Mittal Vs Saurabh Gupta

Smt. Swati Gupta Wife of Shri Sunil Mittal Vs Saurabh Gupta

Manisha Bairwa D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Bairwa, Vs State of Rajasthan

Man Singh S/O Mohar Singh, Vs Chandrabhan S/O Shri Roop Singh

Chouthmal S/O Shri Babullal Vs State of Rajasthan