Dismissed

Vijendra @ Rinku Son of Shri Hanuman Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2023CRLMP/325/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a private complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered for alleged offences including IPC and SC/ST Act violations. The court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences, investigation was required, and defense evidence could not be considered at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings were not quashed; petitioners directed to submit evidence before the Investigating Officer.

Vijendra @ Rinku Son of Shri Hanuman Gurjar Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:38876]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 325/2022

¶4

Vijendra @ Rinku Son Of Shri Hanuman Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Sainthal, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through P.P

¶8

Mangla Ram Son Of Shri Puran Mal Meghwal, Resident Of Bhadwa, Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur, At Present Posted As Constable 1012 At Police Station Sainthal, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2091/2022

¶12

Gajraj Singh @ Bablu Son Of Shri Hanuman Sahai Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Senior Secondary School, Village And Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶13

Hanuman Singh @ Hanuman Sahai Son Of Shri Prabhati Lal Gurjar, Aged About 66 Years, , Resident Of Near Senior Secondary School, Village And Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶14

Kamla Devi Wife Of Shri Hanuman Sahai Gurjar, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Near Senior Secondary School, Village And Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶15

Bachchu Devi @ Manju Wife Of Gajraj Singh Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Near Senior Secondary School, Village And Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶16

Bhonri Lal Son Of Shri Ramdhan, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Village And Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶17

Babli Devi @ Babu Devi Daughter Of Hanuman Sahai, Wife Of Ramhet, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Abhaneri, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa At Present Village And Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa

[2023:RJ-JP:38876]

[CRLMP-325/2022]

(2 of 6)

(Raj.)

Maya Devi Daughter Of Hanuman Sahai, Wife Of Ram Khiladi Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Abhaneri, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa At Present Village And Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶23

----Petitioners

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶26

Mangla Ram Son Of Pooranmal Meghwal, Resident Of Bhadwa, Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur (Raj.) At Present Posted Constable 1012, Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yunus Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahala, PP

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶30

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :- 12/12/2023

¶31

The petitioners have filed these misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.0173/2021, registered at Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa for offences under Sections 143, 332, 353, 336, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that Ct. Mangla Ram, No.1012 PS Sainthal, Dausa submitted a typed report at the Police Station Sainthal inter alia alleging that he is a beat constable in Sainthal. On 18.12.2021, he was on night duty with Duty Officer Dharam Singh HC No.57. He was on patrolling duty with Duty Officer HC Dharam Singh, Kailash Ct. No.1229 and Sumer Singh Ct (Driver)

[2023:RJ-JP:38876]

[CRLMP-325/2022]

(3 of 6)

No.687. In the night at about 2:00 AM, Dharam Singh HC received an information that some persons are going to unauthorizedly usurp/encroach a plot near Liquor Godown, Gola Ka Baas Road, Sainthal. On the basis of this information, the police team reached at the spot and found that Hanuman Sahay, Bhorilal, Gajraj Singh @ Bablu, Smt. Babli Devi @ Babu Devi, Smt. Maya Devi, Smt. Manju Devi @ Bachchu, Kamla Devi were illegally occupying the plot. Rajendra @ Raju and Phoolchand Saini were showing themselves to be the owner of the plot in question and opposing them. As there was an imminent danger to law and order situation and fight may break out at any moment, HC Dharam Singh telephonically informed the SHO about this incident to which, the SHO along with other police personnel reached at the spot. They tried to stop Hanuman Sahay, Bhorilal, Gajraj Singh @ Bablu Smt Babli, Smt Mayadevi, Smt. Manju Devi @ Bachchu and Kamla Devi for illegally occupying the plot in question. At that time, there came 15-20 persons in two vehicles. They all were armed with lathis and dandas. Those assailants started pelting stones on the police team. Some additional police force was called out and thereafter only, both the parties could be pacified. It is alleged in the report that Hanuman Sahay, Bhorilal, Gajraj Singh @ Bablu, Smt. Babli Devi @ Babu Devi, Smt Maya Devi, Smt Manju Devi, Kamla Devi, Vijendra @ Rinku Gurjar and their companions pelted stones on the police team due to which, he received an injury on his jaw. It is also alleged in the report that the accused persons knowingly started hurling caste based insinuation to him and made hindrance in discharge of his official duties. On the basis of this report, the police registered the impugned FIR No.173/2021

[2023:RJ-JP:38876]

[CRLMP-325/2022]

(4 of 6)

for offences under Sections 143, 332, 353, 336 and 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act and started investigation.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from bare reading of the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioners. He submits that on account of a land dispute, which is in possession of the petitioners, this false and frivolous FIR has been lodged against them. He further submits that in the intervening night of 18.12.2021 and 19.12.2021, some police personnel along with the complainant, who is also a police official came on the land in question and asked the petitioners to vacate the land. However, when the petitioners and their family members did not agree to it, they were brutally beaten by the police as a result of which, petitioners and other family members received serious injuries. It is further submitted that on 20.07.2021, an FIR No.96/2021 has already been registered at the Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC by the petitioners in respect of the same land by filing complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. The penal provisions under the Atrocities Act have also been misused as the complainant was totally unknown and alien for the petitioners. He thus, prays that the misc. petitions may be allowed and the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof, may be quashed.

¶42

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the arguments advanced by the petitioner's

[2023:RJ-JP:38876]

[CRLMP-325/2022]

(5 of 6)

counsel. He submits that from a bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is clear that cognizable offences have been committed by the accused petitioners and the matter requires investigation. He has also placed on record IO's factual report as per which, prima facie offences under Sections 143, 332, 353, 336 and 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act are made out.

¶47

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and carefully gone through the material available on record.

¶48

In the FIR, there are allegations against the petitioners that the accused persons pelted stones on the police team and hurled caste based insinuation to the complainant Ct. Mangla Ram who belongs to SC community and created hindrance in discharge of his official duties. More so, it is a case in which investigation is required. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 (Supp.) (1) SCC 335, the following parameters were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶49

“(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶50

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶51

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

¶52

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable

(6 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JP:38876]

[CRLMP-325/2022]

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶57

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶58

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶59

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶60

It emerges from the facts that the case of the petitioners does not fall in any of the category of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The facts which are disputed by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated at this stage in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Further, the defence of the accused petitioner cannot be considered in petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. Therefore, the instant misc. petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to submit all their evidence before the Investigating Officer in support of their innocence and in the event of filing such documents, it is expected from the Investigating Officer to conduct free, fair and proper investigation in the matter.

¶61

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶62

Sudhir Asopa/16

Vijendra @ Rinku Son of Shri Hanuman Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra @ Rinku Son of Shri Hanuman Gurjar 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

Devkaran @ Foruu Son of Saubhag Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Buddhi Prakash @ Vinod S/O Radhey Shyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajraj Singh @ Bablu Son of Shri Hanuman Sahai Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kasana S/O Shri Janardhan B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman S/O Shri Jagram Vs State of Rajasthan