Disposed

Achala Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Mar 2022CRLMP/409/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Investigating Officer's negative report in a property fraud case. The Court observed serious discrepancies regarding the power of attorney and sale deed timeline, deeming the IO's conclusion improbable. It held it cannot change the IO but directed the Superintendent of Police to re-examine the report.

What did the court decide?

Petition and stay application disposed of; direction issued to Superintendent of Police, Sirohi to reconsider the case based on noted discrepancies.

Achala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 409/2022

¶3

Achala Ram S/o Mancha Ram Ji, Aged About 65 Years, Jhadoliveer, Teh. Sheoganj, Dist. Sirohi.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi, Dist. Sirohi.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaju Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Andaram Choudhary, P. P. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, I.O./Dy.S.P. SC/ST Cell, Sirohi

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

22/03/2022

¶13

Learned Public Prosecutor has placed factual report dated 21.03.2022, according to which, the Investigating Officer has concluded that no offence has been committed by the accusedpersons.

¶14

I have perused the case diary.

¶15

On perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that Mancha Ram, whose power of attorney is alleged to be forged or got executed fraudulently himself has stated in his supplementary statement that his son – Kanti Lal, the accused has got his thumb impression on papers in the guise of getting his ‘Jan Aadhar Card’ prepared.

¶16

That apart, it is noteworthy that the contentious power of attorney was (got) executed on 20.02.2021 in favour of accused –

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CRLMP-409/2022]

¶19

Kantilal, who in turn executed a sale deed in favour of his son just within three days (23.02.2021).

¶20

It is surprising that the Investigating Officer has not even bothered to enquire or report as to whether the amount of sale consideration (Rs.4 lacs) has ever been given to the owner - the puported executant Mancharam.

¶21

Given the fact that within three days of alleged execution of power of attorney the land was sold to Dashrath (Executant’s grandson), one fails to comprehend as to why the owner (Mancha Ram) would execute a power of attorney in favour of his son (Kanti Lal) instead of sale deed when his grandson was already prepared to purchase the property.

¶22

In view of what has been stated hereinabve, this Court is of the view that the proposed conclusion lacks prudence if not probity.

¶23

Despite above facts the I.O. has proposed negative final report essentially because the complainant is Achala Ram another son of Maccha Ram- the person who owns the land and who has been allegedly misled to execute the contentious power of attorney.

¶24

Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Investigating Officer be changed, but this Court feels that it would not serve any purpose because it is the conclusion on the existing evidence and material which is not in tandem with the material available on case record. That apart, changing Investigating Officer is not within the domain of this Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is purely an administrative act as held by the Supreme Court in Divine

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CRLMP-409/2022]

¶27

Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.(2008 ) 3SCC

¶28

542 . It was observed thus:-

¶29

“ 39. The sum and substance of the above deliberation and analysis of the law cited leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code. However, we may hasten to add that unfettered discretion does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and act according to one’s own choice. The power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition of which that power is granted by the Code itself.

¶30

40. In our view, the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot be converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in motion. Neither are the accused nor the complainant or informant entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a crime in which they may be interested.

¶31

41. It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of rare case where a clear case of abuse of power and noncompliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even in such case, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code. ”

¶32

The Court is informed that the Superintendent Of Police is yet to approve the final report so proposed by the Investigating Officer.

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CRLMP-409/2022]

¶35

Hence, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi to dwell upon the aspects noted above and then do the needful in accordance with law.

¶36

Needless to observe that this Court has highlighted its concern about the proposed conclusion as given in the factual report. The same are prima-facie impression of the Court and the competent authority and trial Court shall be free to take its independent view of the matter upon thorough consideration of oral and occular evidence and material that has been collected so far.

¶37

The present misc. petition so also stay application stands disposed of.

¶38

(DINESH MEHTA),J 45-A.Arora/-

Achala Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achala Ram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anop Singh Vs Ashok Jain

Umed Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Paras Bafna Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonal Nanoma Vs State of Rajasthan

Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan