Dismissed

Gopal Puniya v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2022CRLW/68/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court rejected the plea to direct investigation for an FIR regarding a death, finding that the proper course was to approach the trial court and that the petitioner had no ground to seek this petition given prior orders.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition is rejected as no special leave or investigation direction is warranted under the circumstances.

Gopal Puniya Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 68/2018

¶3

Gopal Puniya S/o Late Shri Raghunath Puniya B/c Jat, R/o Village Parasrampura, Tan Sargoth, Police Station Ringus, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Sikar, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶9

S.h.o. Police Station Ringus, Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶10

Director, C.B.I. New Delhi.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat Mr. Parmeshwar Pilania
For	:	Major R.P. Singh, AAG with
Respondent(s)		Mr.
		Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA-Cum-AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶14

Order

¶15

24/11/2022

¶16

;kph@ifjoknh dh vksj ls Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds rgr ;g fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dj iqfyl Fkkuk jhaxl] ftyk&lhdj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 237@2017 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 147] 148] 447] 323] 342] 354] 376] 511] 365] 458] 327] 395] 307] 149 Hkk-na-la- dk vuqla/kku lh-ch-vkbZ- dks lkSais tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

¶17

(2 of 6) [CRLW-68/2018]

¶18

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd bl ekeys esa uketn o vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi xaHkhj vijk/k ls lacaf/kr gSa] vfHk;qDrx.k izHkko'kkyh O;fDr gSa rFkk iqfyl muls feyh gqbZ gSA izkjEHk eas pkj vuqla/kku vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk dqN vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ekeyk izekf.kr ekuk Fkk] ysfdu ckn esa vpkud mPp Lrjh; gLr{ksi ds i'pkr vafre vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa ;w&VuZ ysrs gq, vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) i;kZIr lkexzh gksus ds ckotwn udkjkRed vafre izfrosnu izLrqr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa fu"i{k] izHkkoh vkSj 'kh?kz vuqla/kku gsrq ekeyk lh-ch-vkbZ- dks lkSaik tkuk vko';d gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd ,sls fof'k"V o viokfnd ekeyksa esa iqu% vuqla/kku gsrq vkns'k Hkh fn;k tk ldrk gSA mUgksaus vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s&

¶19

Ramesh Kumar vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1322;

¶20

Rashmi Behl Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2015 Cr.L.R. (SC) 305;

¶21

State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571;

¶22

Pooja Pal Vs Union of India & Ors. 2016 Cr.L.R. (SC) 220

¶23

Vinai Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali@ Deepak & Ors. 2013 AIR SCW 220

¶24

blds foijhr fo}ku vfrfjDr egkf/koDrk }kjk mijksDr lHkh rdksaZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd iqfyl vkSj ofj"B iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk vius foosdkuqlkj rFkk le;≤ ij U;k;ky; }kjk fn;sx;s vkns'kksa dks ns[krs gq,

¶25

(3 of 6) [CRLW-68/2018]

¶26

fu"i{k vuqla/kku dh n`f"V ls viuh vf/kdkfjrk ds rgr vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh cnys x;s gSa rFkk izdj.k esa fu"i{k vuqla/kku gqvk gSA mudh ,d xaHkhj vkifRr o rdZ ;g Hkh gS fd ;kph dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk fu"i{k vuqla/kku dh laHkkouk ugha gksuk crkrs gq, izLrqr dh gS] ysfdu bUgha vk/kkjksa ij ;kph dh vksj ls ,d vU; ,dyihB nkafMd fofo/k ;kfpdk la[;k 5480@2017 izLrqr dh x;h Fkh tks fnukad 16-01-2018 ds vkns'k ds ek/;e ls [kkfjt dh x;h Fkh vkSj mu rF;ksa dks fNikrs gq, vkB fnu i'pkr gh ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h gS tks U;kf;d o dkuwuh izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd pwafd ;kph U;k;ky; ds le{k LoPN gkFkksa] lEiw.kZ o lgh rF;ksa ds lkFk ugha vk;k gS] vr% bl vk/kkj ij Hkh ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶27

nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶28

gLrxr ekeys esa ifjoknh }kjk mijksDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 237@2017 bu vkjksiksa ds lkFk ntZ djk;h gS fd og] mldh iRuh rFkk cPps fnukad 22-07-2017 dks vius ?kj esa lks jgs Fks rc jkf= ds le; lqjsUnz csfuoky] lR;ohj rFkk 60&65 yksxksa us muds ?kj esa ?kqldj ekjihV dh] mldh iRuh dh yTtk Hkax dh] mldh ;ksfu esa maxyh Mkydj xanh gjdrsa dh rFkk ca/kd cukdj ywV fy;k] vkfnA

¶29

ifjoknh i{k dh vksj ls vfHk;qDrx.k dks izHkko'kkyh gksuk vkfn ds vk/kkj ij fu"i{k vuqla/kku ugha gksus dh laHkkoukvksa ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr blh U;k;ky; ds le{k ,dyihB nkafMd fofo/k ;kfpdk la[;k 5480@2017

¶30

(4 of 6)

¶31

[CRLW-68/2018]

¶32

izLrqr dh ftlesa fnukad 16-01-2018 dks fuEu vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh x;h&

¶33

"Petitiner has moved this criminal miscellaneous petition seeking fair investigation in the F.I.R. No. 237/2017 dated 22.07.2017.

¶34

No case is made out for entertaining the criminal miscellaneous petition as the proper course available to the petitoner is to approach concerned Court and inquire about the progress of the investigation done by the police and seeks appropriate order form the concerned Court.

¶35

Hence, criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly rejected, Stay application stands disposed of."

¶36

ysfdu mlds i'pkr mlh dfFkr O;Fkk ds vk/kkj ij mijksDr rF;ksa dks izdV fd;s fcuk ;g nwljh ;kfpdk Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds rgr izLrqr dh x;h gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa lkekU; :i ls ;g visf{kr Fkk fd ;kph blh izFke lwpuk fjiskVZ ls laca/k esa blh izdkj ds pkgs x;s vuqrks"k ds laca/k esa ikfjr vkns'k dk izdVhdj.k gLrxr ;kfpdk esa djrk] ysfdu ,slk izdVhdj.k mijksDr ;kfpdk esa ugha fd;k x;k gSA

¶37

orZeku ;kfpdk esa izkjEHk esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ vUrfje vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj vuqla/kku lh-ch-vkbZdks lkSisa tkus ls lacaf/kr ;kfpdk yafcr gksus ds ckotwn blh ;kfpdk esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 21-01-2020 dks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk vuqla/kku iw.kZ djrs gq, urhtk nks ekg esa iw.kZ djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA mDr vkns'k fnukad 21-012020 fuEu izdkj gS&

¶38

(5 of 6)

¶39

[CRLW-68/2018]

¶40

"The Investigating Officer is present. He has submitted the Status report. Taking into consideration the contents thereof, this court deems it apporpriate to direct the concerned IO to conduct investigation and fine necessary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the concerned competent court within a period of two months in both the cases i.e. FIR Nos. 237/2017 & 392/2017."

¶41

mijksDr vkns'k ds mijkUr izdj.k esa vuqla/kku gksdj iqfyl fjiksVZ ¼udkjkRed vafre izfrosnu½ U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] jhaxl ftyk&lhdj esa fnukad 21-07-2020 dks izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ,d ckj urhtk izLrqr gksus ds i'pkr lacaf/kr eftLVªsV U;k;ky; ifjoknh dk i{k lqudj vafre izfrosnu Lohdkj dj ldrk gS] mlls vlger gksdj izlaKku ys ldrk gS vFkok mfpr ik;s tkus ij vfxze vuqla/kku ds vkns'k ns ldrk gSA eftLVªsV dh bUgha 'kfDr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, blh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds laca/k esa ifjoknh dh iwoZorhZ ;kfpdk esa fnukad 16-01-2018 dks U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k fd lacaf/kr eftLVªsV ds ikl mipkj izkIr djus gsrq ifjoknh@;kph ds i;kZIr fodYi gSa vkSj blh fVIi.kh ds lkFk ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh x;h FkhA

¶42

viokfnd rFkk fojyre ekeyksa eas mPp U;k;ky; lh-ch-vkbZ- ls izdj.k dk vuqla/kku djk;s tkus dk vkns'k ns ldrk gS] ysfdu gLrxr ekeys esa ifjoknh dh vk'kadk ij fopkj djus ds ckn mldh ;kfpdk [kkfjt gks pqdh gS rFkk bl i'pkrorhZ orZeku fjV ;kfpdk esa Hkh U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh vuqla/kku dks jksdus ds ctk; nks ekg esa vuqla/kku iw.kZ dj urhtk izLrqr djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS rFkk vc urhtk Hkh izLrqr gks pqdk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k

¶43

(6 of 6) [CRLW-68/2018]

¶44

fnukad 16-01-2018dh ikyuk esa ifjoknh lacaf/kr eftLVªsV U;k;ky; ds le{k fojks/k ;kfpdk vkfn izLrqr dj viuk mipkj izkIr dj ldrk gSA

¶45

bl izdkj bl LVst ij lEiw.kZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa o nf"Vdks.k dks ns[krs gq, bl U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k dk vuqla/kku lh-ch-vkbZ- dks lkSais tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n"VkUr bl izdj.k dh fof'k"V o i`Fkd ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, ifjoknh dks dksbZ ykHk igqapkus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gSaA

¶46

mijksDr foospukuqlkj ;kph@ifjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g fjV ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS] ifj.kker% izLrqr ;kfpdk ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

¶47

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶48

Mittal/2

Gopal Puniya v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Puniya v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Shahnoor Khan S/O Shri Bahadur Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Balveer Singh Kansba S/O Shri Harlal Singh Kansba Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitan Singh S/O Late Shri Podisingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat S/O Phool Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/O Shri Ahmad Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Farook Khan S/O Mo. Yakoob Vs State of Rajasthan