Dismissed

Mahaveer Saran v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Nov 2022CRLR/225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench High Court rejected revision challenging charges framing against Mahaveer Saran under IPC Sections 306/376 but allowed petitions quashing cognizance against other accused where police found no offence and investigation showed no involvement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.08.2018 quashed and set aside regarding petitioners Genda Devi, Suresh Saran, and Surendra Khoja.

Mahaveer Saran Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 225/2022
Mahaveer Saran S/o Babulal, Aged About 32 Years, r/o Village
Post Bhavi, Sarano Ki Pole, Teh. Bilada, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1041/2018
1. Smt Genda Devi W/o Sh.
Babu Lal, Aged About 48
Years, B/c Jat, R/o 242,
Khedo Ka Baas, Bilara,
Dist. Jodhpur
2. Suresh Saran S/o Babu Lal,
Aged About 29 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o Deviraj Ji Ki Pole, Bilara
Dist. Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Nitesh Choudhary S/o Shri
Bhana Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Vill.
Boyal, P.s. Bilara, Teh. Pipar
City, Jodhpur
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1167/2018
Surendra Khoja S/o Sh. Shankar Lal, Aged About 33 Years, B/c
Jat, Village Riyan Setha , P.s. Pipar City Distt. Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Nikhilesh S/o Bhana Ram,
Village Boyal Tehsil Pipar City
Distt. Jodhpur

(2 of 10)

[CRLR-225/2022]

----Respondents

For Petitioners	: Mr. Aditya Sharma (Mahaveer Saran)
	Mr. Yuvraj Singh for (Genda Devi) Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
	Mr. Vikas Bijarnia(Surendra Khoja)
For Respondents	: Mr. Arun Kumar,P.P.

¶7

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶8

Judgment

¶9

Reserved on 23/11/2022 Pronounced on 25/11/2022

¶10

These Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C have been preferred praying for the following reliefs:-

¶11

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 225/2022 :-

¶12

“ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner-

¶13

i. that this cr. Revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (Women Atrocities Cases) in session case no. 56/2016 framing charges against the petitioner under Section 306 and 376 of the IPC, may kindly be set aside.

¶14

ii. That any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.”

¶15

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1041/2018:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed. The order dated 23.08.2018 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Jodhpur Metropolitan may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused petitioners may be discharged for offence under section 306 and 506 I.P.C.

¶17

(3 of 10)

¶18

[CRLR-225/2022]

¶19

Any other relief which may be considered in favour of the petitioners may kindly be ordered to be issued.”

¶20

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1167/2018:-

¶21

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this “revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 56/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged from the offence under section 306, 506 I.P.C.

¶22

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶23

The complainant in the present revision petitions, Nitish Choudhary S/o Bhana Ram Choudhary, is the brother of the deceased victim-Shobha. Mahaveer Saran S/o Babulal, petitioner in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 225/2022 (“the first petition”), and Suresh Saran S/o Babulal are brothers, and Genda Devi W/o Babulal, is their mother; the latter two being petitioners in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1041/2018 (“the second petition”). Surendra Khoja S/o Shankar Lal was the husband of the deceased victim-Shobha, being the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1167/2018 (“the third petition”).

¶24

The first revision petition, preferred by Mahaveer Saran assails the order whereby charges were framed against him for the offences under Sections 376 and 306 IPC, whereas the petitioners in the second petition and third petition, assail the order whereby cognizance was taken against them for the offences under Sections 306 and 506 IPC, by the learned Court

¶25

(4 of 10)

¶26

[CRLR-225/2022]

¶27

below, after an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the complainant.

¶28

Brief facts of the case, as the pleaded facts and a perusal of the record would reveal, are that the deceased victim-Shobha married Surendra Khoja in the year 2007, as per Hindu rites and rituals. On 01.10.2015, an F.I.R. bearing No. 303/2015 came to be lodged at Police Station Mandore, on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant; upon investigation, the concerned police authorities filed a charge-sheet against Mahaveer Saran for the offences under Sections 306 and 376 IPC. Subsequently, an application under Section 193 was preferred by the complainant against the other persons named in the F.I.R., which the learned Court below allowed, and proceeded to take cognizance against Genda Devi, Suresh Saran, Surendra Khoja and Mukut Meena for the offences under Sections 306 and 506 IPC.

¶29

Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first petition, submitted that the only nexus between the deceased victim-Shobha and Mahaveer Saran is that the victim repeatedly made phone calls to him in September 2015, but that he did not answer her calls, and that a perusal of his call records would reveal the same.

¶30

5.1 It was further submitted that both, the deceased victimShobha and Mahaveer Saran, at the time were married individuals, and that the charge levelled against him, as recorded in the charge-sheet before the learned Court below, of inducement into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage, does not hold water. That the same would only be applicable if such inducement/promise was made to an unmarried person.

¶31

(5 of 10)

¶32

[CRLR-225/2022]

¶33

Arguendo , it was also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that any inducement was made by him to the deceased victim, that both of them would divorce their respective spouses, and thereafter, marry each other.

¶34

5.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 175/2013 : 2013 (9) SCC 293 , and it was submitted that in a similar factual matrix, the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled in favour of the accused-appellant therein.

¶35

5.3 It was thus submitted that the charges framed against Mahaveer Saran are prima facie not maintainable, and accordingly, the impugned order framing charges against him deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶36

Mr. Yuvraj Singh appearing for Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners in the second petition, submitted that the concerned police authorities filed the chargesheet only against Mahaveer Saran, and did not find any offence to be made out against the other persons, named in the impugned F.I.R. after a thorough investigation. That despite the same, the learned Court below in a mechanical manner allowed the application, under Section 193 Cr.P.C. preferred by the complainant and arrayed Suresh Saran and Genda Devi as accused in the trial going on before it.

¶37

6.1 It was further submitted that the suicide note left behind by the deceased victim-Shobha did not contain a whisper regarding the name of Genda Devi, yet the said aspect was not appreciated by the learned Court below. Furthermore, the concerned police authorities did not find any evidence at all, to implicate Suresh

¶38

(6 of 10)

¶39

[CRLR-225/2022]

¶40

Saran in the crime in question. Furthermore, the call details also reveal that there was no contact between him and the deceasedvictim.

¶41

6.2 It was therefore submitted that no prima facie case is made out against Genda Devi and Suresh Saran, in relation to the allegations levelled against them, and hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against them deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶42

Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, learned counsel for the petitioner in the third petition, submitted that the deceased victim-Shobha to whom Surendra Khoja was married had no involvement in the crime in question, and that the concerned police authorities after conducting the investigation, filed a charge-sheet only against Mahaveer Saran, and did not find any offence to be made out against Surendra Khoja, in connection with the allegations levelled against him. That in her suicide note, the deceased victim-Shobha levelled direct and specific allegations against Mahaveer Saran, Suresh Saran and Mukut Meena and no direct role is attributable to Surendra Khoja.

¶43

It was further submitted that the relationship between the deceased victim-Shobha and her husband, Surendra had issues, much like any other couple, and that a case came to filed by her against her husband and in-law’s, which subsequently came to be withdrawn by her. And that, she had in fact divulged to her husband that Mahaveer Saran and his brother Suresh Saran had forcefully established a physical relationship with her and were blackmailing and threatening her life and well-being; owing to which she died by suicide.

¶44

(7 of 10)

¶45

[CRLR-225/2022]

¶46

It was also submitted that while the learned Court below rightly proceeded to take cognizance against Genda Devi and Suresh Saran, but it erred in declaring Surendra Khoja as an accused, owing to the above made submissions.

¶47

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, and submitted that the learned Court has rightly passed the impugned orders, of framing charges against Mahaveer Saran, and allowing the application preferred by the complainant under Section 193 Cr.PC. to array Genda Devi, Suresh Saran, Surendra Khoja and Mukut Meena in the trial going on before it; owing to the clear allegations levelled upon them by the deceased victim-Shobha in her comprehensive eleven page suicide note. That, more particularly, looking to the stage of the proceedings and the nature of the crime in question and the specific and direct allegations levelled upon the petitioners by the deceased-victim, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case and the judgment cited at the Bar. 11. Looking into the factual matrix of the present case, and that the investigation of the concerned police authorities which culminated into the charge-sheet being filed against the petitioner in the first petition i.e. Mahaveer Saran, coupled with the specific allegations levelled upon him by the deceased victim-Shobha in the eleven page suicide note and the serious allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC and of abetment to suicide under 306 IPC, this Court finds that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order dated 04.01.2022 framing charges against him for the offences under Sections 306 and 376 IPC.

¶49

(8 of 10)

¶50

[CRLR-225/2022]

¶51

In light of the same and looking to the stage of the litigation, this Court is not inclined to make any interference in the first

¶52

petition, being, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 225/2022 .

¶53

11.1.Before moving onto the second and third petitions, at the outset, this Court takes note that upon completion of the investigation, the concerned police authorities filed a charge-sheet solely against Mahaveer Saran, and did not find any offence to be made out against the other accused persons named in the impugned FIR, which includes petitioners- Genda Devi, Suresh Saran and Surender Khoja. And that, the said persons were arrayed as parties in the ongoing trial before the learned Court below at the instance of the application preferred under Section 193 Cr.P.C. by the complainant-brother of the deceased victimShobha; the same was done by allowing the said application vide the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the learned Court below.

¶54

11.2.A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Court below has recorded that the offences in question are serious in nature, being under Sections 506 and 306 IPC, and that given the serious nature of allegations, the Court proceeded to take cognizance against the said petitioners.

¶55

11.3 However what needs to seen is whether a prima facie case is made out against them, in allowing such an application and arraying them as accused persons, since the concerned police authorities upon due investigation did not find any offence to be made out against them.

¶56

11.4 This Court further observes that neither the comprehensive

¶57

eleven page suicide note written by the deceased victim-Shobha,

¶58

(9 of 10) [CRLR-225/2022]

¶59

nor the investigation found any involvement of petitioners- Genda Devi or Surender Khoja. Neither has the contents of the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. been able to attribute any role to them, so to point towards their involvement in the crime in question, nor towards the fact that a prima facie case was found to be made out against them, vide the impugned order.

¶60

11.5 Now, with respect to the involvement of Suresh Saran, the call details on record coupled with the fact that the concerned police authorities did not reveal any involvement on his part in the crime in question. Even though his name was mentioned in the suicide note, it cannot be said that he was involved in the crime in question, as the investigation conducted by the concerned police authorities and the conclusion accordingly filed by them would reveal the sole nexus between him and the deceased-victim to be certain phone calls, initiated at the instance of the deceased victim. And that, the duration of the said phone calls corroborate the version of Suresh Saran, as is evident from the record, that the calls were short and insignificant to the crime in question. 11.6 This Court, in light of the above, thus finds a case made out warranting its interference in the second and third petitions. 12. As an upshot of the above discussion, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 225/2022 fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶61

However, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1041/2018 and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1167/2018 are allowed . Resultantly, the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners-Genda Devi, Suresh Saran and Surender Khoja.

¶62

(10 of 10) [CRLR-225/2022]

¶63

Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner-Mahaveer Saran on merits during trial, and the learned Trial Court shall adjudicate his case upon its own merits. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶64

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶65

Skant/-

Mahaveer Saran v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Saran 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

Saka Ram and Anr. Vs State

Amit Sharma Vs State and Anr.

Sahab Ram Vs State

State of Rajasthan Vs Bhinya Ram

State of Rajasthan Vs Pawan Kumar @ Rinku

Smt.Gero Devi and Ors. Vs State