Special Criminal Appeal admitted but dismissed. The appeal against the rejection of a Section 340 Cr.P.C. complaint was barred by limitation and the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. Relief granted to the respondent.
Petitioner left at liberty to avail all other legal remedies available under law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:35851]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 750/2023
Angrez Singh S/o Surjeet Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ramlal Colony, Gali No. 7, Chack 3-E Chhoti, Ssb Road, Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Ms.Sapna Vaishnav. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan,P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR JUDGMENT 16/10/2023
The Registry has reported the present appeal to be barred by seven days.
The instant appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.2.2023 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Sriganganagar in Complaint Case No.90/2022, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 340 and 195 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
The prayer made in the present appeal reads as under:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of the appellant that this appeal may kindly be allowed, the order dated 16.2.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Complaint Case No.90/2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside an the learned trial court may be directed allow the
(2 of 3)
[2023:RJ-JD:35851]
[CRLAS-750/2023]
complaint and to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 166A, 177, 182, 191, 192 and 193 of the IPC against the private respondent herein.”
Having gone through the case file, this Court finds that the petitioner lodged an FIR No.90/2022 at PS Matilirathan against his wife and in-laws. The police after conducting thorough investigation in the matter, submitted negative final report bearing No.15/2022 (CIS No.25/2022) “Angrez Singh Vs. Gurpreet Singh” before competent criminal court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency, filed a protest petition before competent criminal court. The competent criminal court however, did not find merit in the protest petition and accepted the negative final report.
This Court from the close scrutiny of the case file, finds that the order passed by competent criminal court accepting negative final report has already attained finality as the same has remained unchallenged thereafter.
The petitioner instead of challenging order whereby negative final report was accepted by competent criminal court, filed a complaint under Section 340 and 195 Cr.P.C. before same criminal court seeking further investigation into the matter. The Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act No.1, Sriganganagar, vide order dated 16.02.2023 turned down the request of the petitioner and passed following order:-
" वि�्ቛानवि�शेषलोकअवि�योजकउपቝኌ�त।परि��ादीअं्ቇेजवि�ंह यंउपቝኌ�त | परि��ाददज��विज् �हो।परि��ादीअं्ቇेजवि�ंह्ቭ यंको �ुनागया।परि��ादमें�वि%�तत्ቔ ों�े�ंबंवि(त्ቚ क�%्ቚ थम�ूचनारि�पो्� �ं० 90/2022 पुविल�थानाम्ीली�ाठानमेंपुविल�थानाम्ीली�ाठान ा�ाबादअनु�ं(ान्ቚ्ቜु तअंवितम्ቚ वित�ेदनकीप्ቔा�ली�ं्ቅ ा 15/2022
(3 of 3)
[2023:RJ-JD:35851]
[CRLAS-750/2023]
CIS No.25/2022 अं्ቇेजवि�ंहबनामगु�्ቚीतकौ��गै�ाकाअ�लोकन विकयागया।
पुविल�थानाम्ीली�ाठानकी्ቚ थम�ूचनारि�पो्��ं० 90/2022 बादअनु�ं(ान्ቚ्ቜु तअंवितम्ቚ वित�ेदनकीप्ቔा�ली�ं्ቅ ा- 15/2022 CIS No. 25/2022 अं्ቇेजवि�ंहबनामगु�्ቚीतकौ��अ् मेंपरि��ादी ा�ा्ቚ्ቜु त�ाኚ᭻�ाम्ቇीकी्ቚ क�% मेंवि��ेचनाकीजाक�पुविल�थाना म्ीली�ाठान्ቛ ा�ा्ቚ्ቜु तअंवितम्ቚ वित�ेदन्ቭ ीका�विकयाजाचुकाहैतथा उ्ሹ अंवितम्ቚ वित�ेदनकेवि�रू्ቍ परि��ादी्ቛ ा�ा्ቚ्ቜु तवि��ो( याविचका अ्ቭ ीका�क�खारि�जकीजाचुकीहै। �त�मानपरि��ादकाअ�लोकनक�नेप�पायागयाविकजोत्ቔ परि��ादीनेअपनेपरि��ादमेंउ्ቤे ቝኌखतविकयेहैं, उनकेआ(ा�प�परि��ाद मेंविक�ीकाय � ाहीकेविलएअ्ቇ��होनेकेविलएकोईआ(ा�ए�ं�ाኚ᭻ उपल्ቓ नहींहै।अतःपरि��ादी्ቛ ा�ा्ቚ्ቜु तपरि��ादअ्ቭ ीका�क�खारि�ज विकयाजाताहै।
आदेश�ुनायागया।"
As noticed above, the negative final report bearing No.15/2022 (CIS No.25/2022) “Angrez Singh Vs. Gurpreet Singh”, has already been accepted by competent criminal court and the protest petition filed against the same, has also been rejected. This Court finds that the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 340 and 195 Cr.P.C. had been rejected by the court of Special Judge, POCSO Act No.1, Sriganganagar vide order dated 16.2.2023 which does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference by this Court.
Consequently, the appeal is rejected on merits and being barred by limitation.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse of all legal remedies available to him, in accordance with law.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.410
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the rejection of a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed after a negative final report was accepted should be allowed.
Angrez Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
