Quashed

Sanjay S/O Shri Shivdayal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2023CRLMP/2274/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings under the Rajasthan Police Act for disturbing public tranquility. The Court held that the lower court erred by adjudicating disputed facts and crimes instead of applying a prima facie test.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the learned Trial Judge was quashed and the cross objections were admitted.

Sanjay S/O Shri Shivdayal, Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2274/2023

¶3

Sanjay S/o Shri Shivdayal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 4/17 Vivekanand Nagar, Aravali Vihar, Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Inder Singh, Presently Posted Sub Inspector, Aravali Vihr, Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya, Adv. For : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP Respondent(s)

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

04/08/2023

¶13

;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&vjkoyh fogkj ftyk&vyoj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 187@2022 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 153,] 153ch¼1½¼lh½ rFkk 295, Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA

¶14

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd Lo;a Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk fdlh Hkh O;fDr dh fjiksVZ ds fcuk vius Lrj

¶15

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2274/2023]

¶16

ij ekeyk ntZ fd;k gS] vkbZ-Vh- ,DV ds rgr dksbZ vkjksi izekf.kr ugha ekuk x;k gS] izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij dfFkr vijk/k ds rRo ?kfVr ugha gks jgs gSa] tCr'kqnk eksckbZy Hkh fof/k&foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dks tkap gsrq ugha Hkstk x;k gS] bl izdkj var esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶17

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, tkfgj fd;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSa] mijksDr vkjksiksa vFkok bl ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ds laca/k esa vHkh vafre fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk] ;g vuqla/[email protected] dk fo"k; gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶18

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

¶19

orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa iqfyl Fkkuk vjkoyh fogkj ds rRdkyhu iqfyl mifujh{kd jktohj flag }kjk ;g vkjksi yxk;k gS fd og tkIrs ds lkFk x'r eas Fkk rc izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lat; ds laca/k esa ;g lwpuk izkIr gqbZ fd og Qslcqd vkfn ds ek/;e ls /kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa dks HkMdkus rFkk lkEiznkf;d lkSgknZ fcxkMus dk d`R; dj jgk gS] vfHk;qDr lat; ds ?kj ij mlls iwNrkN dh x;h rks eksckbZy ij Qslcqd vkbZ-Mh- ds ek/;e ls Mkyh x;h iksLV ds ek/;e ls lkEiznkf;d lkSgknZ fcxkMus] v'kkafr iSnk djus vkfn ds rF; izdV gq, ftl ij vfHk;qDr dks fxjQ~rkj dj eksckbZy tCr

¶20

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2274/2023]

¶21

fd;k x;k] Qslcqd ds ek/;e ls tks iksLV Mkyh x;h gS] mldk mYys[k fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS] fdUrq mijksDr vijk/k ds rRo gLrxr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ eas izdV gks jgs gSaA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

¶22

"7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."

¶23

blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk (2002) 1 SCC 555 Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

¶24

"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the

¶25

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2274/2023]

¶26

proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie discolse the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."

¶27

mijksDr U;kf;d n"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd vuqla/kku dh LVst ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksi rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fy, x;s cpko o vU; lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vkfn ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok laf{kIr fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA orZeku ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gksa] ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ U;k;ky;hu izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx djus gsrq ntZ djk;h x;h gks] ,slk Li"V ekeyk ugha gS rFkk yxk;s x;s vkjksi vius vki esa vlaHkkO; gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls tks cpko fy;s x;s gSa] os vuqla/kku dk fo"k; gks ldrs gSa rFkk ;fn vkjksi i= izLrqr gksrk gS rks cpko lk{; ds le; lqlaxr gks ldrs gSaA vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ek= vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx la;r rjhds ls o iw.kZ lko/kkuh ds lkFk visf{kr gSA lkekU; :i ls tc rd lqn< vk/kkj ugha gksa]

¶28

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2274/2023]

¶29

vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶30

mijksDr foospkukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶31

ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

¶32

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶33

Mittal /444

Sanjay S/O Shri Shivdayal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S/O Shri Shivdayal, 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

Smt Rasila W/O Shri Premlal @ Pyarelal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita D/O Shri Lal Chand W/O Shri Rakesh C/O Shri Sohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ankush Agarwal S/O Late Shri Sundar Shyam Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Saini Son of Shri Radheyshyam Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hari Singh Gurjar S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan