Allowed

Veena Singhal W/O Subhash Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jun 2023CRLAS/533/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed criminal appeals lodged against an order of cognizance under the SC/ST PoA. The High Court quashed the cognizance, holding that the trial court failed to consider pending civil court orders and relied on unverified statements, effectively converting a civil dispute into criminal proceedings which was an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Order of cognizance dated 07.09.2019 set aside, final report accepted, protest petition (petition of complaint) dismissed, and appellants discharged.

Veena Singhal W/O Subhash Singhal Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 932/2020

¶3

Madhu Jhiriwal W/o Kamal Jhiriwal, R/o 738, Budh Vihar, Ps Shivaji Park, Alwar, Raj.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Tulsiram S/o Shobharam, R/o Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra, Ps Kotwali, Alwar

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 533/2023

¶11

Veena Singhal W/o Subhash Singhal, R/o Plot No. 22, Scheme No. 1, Alwar Rajasthan

¶12

Subhash Singhal S/o Shri M.k. Singhal, R/o Plot No. 22, Scheme No. 1, Alwar Rajasthan

¶13

Kamal Jhiriwal S/o Indrabhan, R/o 738, Budh Vihar, Police Station Shivajipark, Alwar Rajasthan

¶14

----Appellants

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶17

Tulsiram S/o Shobharam, R/o Mehtab Singh Ka Nohra Police Station Kotwali Alwar

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Nasuna, Dy.GA. Mr. Kapil Gupta

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment/Order

¶21

Date of order reserve01/ 06/2023 Date of pronouncement02/06/2023

¶22

These criminal appeals were filed aggrieved from the order of cognizance dated 07.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST

¶23

(2 of 6) [CRLAS-932/2020]

¶24

(POA) Act Cases, Alwar in criminal case no. 27/50/2018 arising out of F.I.R no. 173/2010 PS Sadar, Alwar District Alwar.

¶25

Both appeals were filed aggrieved from same order hence we are disposing them with a common order.

¶26

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that from bare fact of F.I.R. it is established that to grab the property of appellants and to secure a 10 feet wide road on property of appellants, this complainant has maliciously filed this F.I.R. alleging the offence under SC/ST (POA) Act. He further submitted that police after detailed investigation has submitted a final closure report wherein it was mentioned that this is a false case and no act was committed by appellants. He further submitted that complainant has claimed right of easement and on the basis of same, a civil suit was filed wherein temporary injunction application was dismissed and the order was maintained in appeal as well. He submitted that the orders clearly indicated that no case of complainant was made out but learned trial court even ignored the material available on record and proceeded to take cognizance without application of mind. He further submitted that no material was available to proceed for cognizance in the matter and learned trial court without assigning reason for disagreeing with final closure report had passed the order which is against the settled proposition of law. He further submitted that to settle the civil matter, a case under criminal jurisdiction was framed by complainant on false grounds. Therefore, the order of cognizance suffers from illegality and perversity.

¶27

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for complainant and learned public prosecutor. Learned counsel for

¶28

[CRLAS-932/2020]

¶29

(3 of 6)

¶30

complainant would submitted that the complainant was enjoying uninterrupted easementary right of way to approach his agricultural field and same was disturbed by the appellants, but when contacted they threatened and humiliated them with casteist slur. He further submitted that under the influence of appellants, police had filed final closure report but learned trial court on the basis of evidence available on record had proceeded to take cognizance and same is justified on the basis of material available on record. He further submitted that civil case and criminal case are two different aspects and if any criminal offence was committed, then, a criminal case is maintainable. Moreover, he submitted that at the stage of cognizance only, prima facie , case is required to be seen and there is no illegality in the order itself.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for respondent/complainant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶32

The first and foremost contention of learned counsel for complainant was about the scope of appeal under section 14-A(1) of SC/ST(POA) Act for the same the provision is reproduced as under:

¶33

“14A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.”

¶34

Aforesaid clearly indicated that appeal under the Act can be considered not only on law but on factual aspect as well and any order which is not an interlocutory order is appellable under the Act. Whenever any order is under challenge under the SC/ST(POA)

¶35

[CRLAS-932/2020]

¶36

(4 of 6)

¶37

Act and appeal is filed then the court to impart justice between the parties can look not only on law but also on facts. A provision under section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. cannot be compared with aforesaid provision because the limitation itself is prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure whereas specific provision is made in present Act. This court is of the opinion that wherever there is scope of wider interpretation then the court, need not have to adopt the narrow interpretation. Thus, in an appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the High Court can consider the case on facts as well.

¶38

When we look at the matter in hand, then for act committed on 16.04.2010, an F.I.R was registered through the complainant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 21.04.2010 alleging that complainant was using 10 feet wide road to reach to his agricultural field from government road but accused had obstructed aforesaid way by constructing a wall. When complainant party had objected then 5 to 7 persons with appellants had deliberately insulted and humiliated complainant party with casteist slur and abusive words. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, an FIR was registered and same was investigated. The police after a detailed investigation had filed a final closure report before the trial court. Thereafter, learned trial court proceeded to examine complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of reasoning proceeded to take cognizance under section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The fact of the matter is that no individual specific act of each of appellants was alleged in F.I.R. itself. The record available clearly indicated that T.I. application in civil suit

¶39

[CRLAS-932/2020]

¶40

(5 of 6)

¶41

filed by complainant party was dismissed on 30.10.2010 and miscellaneous appeal was further dismissed on 03.08.2018 by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar. Whenever there is a pending civil dispute and also a pending criminal case relating to the property, then if the order of civil court was there on record, then the order of civil court would prevail over the order of criminal court. The trial court before proceeding to take cognizance was duty-bound to consider the order of civil court but the trial court failed to take notice of the same.

¶42

Herein, aforesaid clearly indicated that from facts itself, complainant respondent have claimed right of easement and right of easement can be claimed on property of another. The fact of the matter which was before learned trial court in closure report was that in revenue record there was no entry as regard to way of appellant is concerned. The reasons assigned by police clearly indicated that no such incident was ever taken place and in garb of this case, complainant wants to ensure that a 10 feet wide way would be provided to them by present appellants. Thus, to exert undue pressure, present complaint was filed by the complainant party.

¶43

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. Vankateswaran & Ors. Vs. P. Bakthavatchalam (2023) SCC Online SC 14 has held that a private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings, thus, initiation of criminal proceedings, under the SC/ST (POA) Act is nothing but an abuse of process of law and court.

¶44

Herein, this case for availing right of way earned through easement was already challenged before the civil court and upto

¶45

[CRLAS-932/2020]

¶46

(6 of 6)

¶47

First appellate court, same was not recognized, therefore, from fact it appears that respondent complainant himself approached the disputed site which was property of appellant and if any altercations or heated exchange, if taken place, in the year 2010 then it was complainant, who had been blamed and not other party as there was no right of complainant on aforesaid place. Moreover, cognizance for same was taken in the year 2019 is also nothing more than a misuse of process of law and after fairly long time, such cognizance order really shackles the confidence of commoner in the litigation system.

¶48

In view of aforesaid, learned trial court, without considering the totality of circumstances, and facts, particularly orders of civil court had proceeded only on the basis of unverified statements of complainant and interested witnesses which is absolutely illegal and perverse. Therefore, the order of cognizance is bad in the eye of law.

¶49

Hence, these appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶50

Therefore, the present appeal aggrieved from order dated 07.09.2019 is hereby allowed and order dated 07.09.2019 is hereby set aside. The protest petition is dismissed and final report is accepted. The appellants are discharged.

¶51

Misc. application, if any stands, disposed of

¶52

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶53

CHETNA BEHRANI /153-154

Veena Singhal W/O Subhash Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Singhal W/O Subhash Singhal 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

Narayan Singh Vs State

Smt. Nanchhi Devi Wife of Shri Ratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirbhay Singh Son of Late Shri Himmat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukut Bihari @ Balla Son of Man Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushila W/O Shri Chandan Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhiraj Son of Shri Balaram Vs State of Rajasthan