Allowed

Bhagwanlal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Nov 2022CRLMP/1626/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petition challenging the rejection of an application under Section 70(2) CrPC and the order issuing arrest warrant. The court held that when an FIR yields a negative final report, summons must be issued, not an arrest warrant. It quashed the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to furnish a bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 17.12.2021 and 06.10.2021 and the order issuing arrest warrant are quashed. Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each

Bhagwanlal Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CRLMP-1626/2022]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S. B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1626/2022

¶5

Bhagwanlal S/o Hajarilal Jat, Aged About 66 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Jojaron Ka Khera, P.S. Bhupalsagar, Dist. Chittorgarh.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

01/11/2022

¶14

By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh Camp Kapasan (hereinafter referred to as “the revisional court”), whereby the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) by which the petitioner’s application under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) was rejected, has been affirmed.

¶15

The facts relevant for the present purpose are that after investigation in relation to an F.I.R., the Investigating Officer filed a negative final report, whereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner and issued warrant of arrest vide its order dated 25.06.2014.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-1626/2022]

¶18

The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 70(2) of the Code, which came to be rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 06.10.2021. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the revision petition under Section 397 of the Code, which too visited the same fate.

¶19

Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 70(2) of the Code and the revisional court in affirming the same.

¶20

It was argued that in the facts of the case, particularly when the Investigating Officer had filed negative final report, the trial court ought not to have issued arrest warrant without first issuing summons to the petitioner.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor, however, supported the orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶23

It is a settled position of law that in a case, where the Investigating Officer files a negative final report and the trial court proceeds to take cognizance of some offence, then, proper course is to issue summons and not arrest warrant.

¶24

Considering that the trial court had taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code when the Investigating Officer had not found any offence committed by the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the trial court was not legally justified in requiring petitioner’s presence directly by way of issuing arrest warrant. The trial court should resort to issuing arrest warrant sparingly.

¶25

The present petition, thus, succeeds.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLMP-1626/2022]

¶28

The impugned orders dated 17.12.2021 passed by the revisional court and dated 06.10.2021 passed by the trial court so also the order issuing arrest warrant are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶29

The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on or before 18.11.2022 and furnish personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

¶30

On being satisfied, the trial court shall accept the same and proceed in accordance with law. In case, the petitioner does not appear by 18.11.2022, the trial court shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.

¶31

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

292-Inder/-

Bhagwanlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwanlal 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

Mahir Seth Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Kumar Viswas Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinita Dave Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinita Dave Vs State of Rajasthan