Allowed

Chhitar Mal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2023CRLMP/3469/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench allowed a revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing criminal charges. The Court held that the High Court erred in invoking inherent powers to investigate disputed facts derived from telephone tapes. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that this stage prohibits mini-trials and requires proceedings to be quashed only when allegations do not disclos

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the quashing petition was set aside, and the quashing prayer allowed based on the Supreme Court's consistent precedent.

Chhitar Mal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/000374]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3469/2012

¶4

Chhitar Mal Son of Shri Ram Devi Mali

¶5

Bhanwar Son of Shri Chhitar Mal Mali

¶6

Devendra Son of Shri Chhitar Mal Mali (Minor) through natural guardian father Shri Chhitar Mal Mali

¶7

Pintu Son of Shri Chhitar Mal Mali

¶8

Smt. Norati Wife of Shri Chhitar Mal Mali

¶9

Smt. Bhanwari Wife of Shri Bhanwar Mali

¶10

Smt. Sanju Wife of Shri Devendra Mali, Residents of Jeevan Jyoti Nagar, Ward No. 28, Madanganj Kishangarh.

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

¶14

Nagar Parishad Kishangarh through Commissioner, Mangatram Jat.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri, Adv. For : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, P.P. Respondent(s) Mr. Brij Kishor Sharma, Adv.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶18

Order

¶19

24/01/2023

¶20

;kph@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk izR;FkhZ dze 02@ifjoknh }kjk ntZ djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 428@2012] iqfyl Fkkuk enuxat] ftyk vtesj vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 143] 353] 188 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dks fujLr djkus gsrq izLrqr dh gSA

[2023/RJJP/000374]

[CRLMP-3469/2012]

(2 of 6)

fo}ku vf/koDRkk vfHk;qDr dk rdZ gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ftl ij izR;FkhZ }kjk vfrdze.k crk;k tk jgk gS] vfHk;qDrx.k ds vf/kdkjksa dh gS rFkk flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk fu;qDr ekSdk dfe'uj }kjk ekSdk eqvk;uk fd;s tkus ds vuqdze esa vfHk;qDrx.k mifLFkr Fks] izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr dksbZ ?kVuk dkfjr ugha gqbZ] ifjoknh rr~le; yksd lsod ds :i esa dk;Zjr ugha Fks] cfYd flfoy izdj.k ds i{kdkj ds :i esa ekStwn Fks] vfHk;qDr nsosUnz ftldks Hkh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa uketn fd;k gS] ?kVuk ds le; ek= 02 o"kZ dk FkkA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd bl ?kVuk ds laca/k esa flfoy U;k;ky; esa vkns'k 39 fu;e 2 ¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr voekuuk ;kfpdk izR;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr dh x;h Fkh tks vkns'k fnukad 12-07-2017 ds ek/;e ls [kkfjt gks x;h] vr% Li"V gS fd ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fof/kd izfdz;k dk nq#i;ksx gSA var esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶25

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd rFkk fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjoknh dk fuosnu gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gS] fookfnr Hkwfe uxj ifj"kn dh gS] vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ekSds dh fLFkfr esa ifjorZu dj vfrdze.k djus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk Fkk] ftls jksdus gsrq yksd lsod vius dRrZO; ds fuoZgu esa ekSds ij ekStwn Fks] ftuds lkFk vkijkf/kd cy dk iz;ksx dj jktdk;Z esa ck/kk igqapkbZA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd voekuuk dh dk;Zokgh ,d i`Fkd dk;Zokgh gS] ftlesa lk{; is'k ugha gksus ls ;kfpdk [kkfjt gqbZ FkhA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd bl

[CRLMP-3469/2012]

[2023/RJJP/000374]

(3 of 6)

LVst ij rFkk /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr miyC/k lkexzh dk lw{e fo'ys"k.k o foospu vFkkZr~ feuh Vªk;y vuqKs; ugha gS rFkk ;kphx.k }kjk fy;s x;s lHkh cpko vuqla/kku dk rFkk ;fn vkjksi i= is'k gksrk gS rks cpko dk fo"k; gks ldrs gS] var esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶30

lHkh i{kksa ds rdksZa ds lanHkZ esa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶31

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 fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%&

¶32

"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."

(4 of 6)

[2023/RJJP/000374]

[CRLMP-3469/2012]

blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ¼2002½ 1 ,l-lh-lh- 555 deyknsoh vxzoky cuke LVsV vkWQ osLV caxky o vU; ds iSjk la[;k&7 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS fd %&

¶37

"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the 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 disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction"

¶38

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;s 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;k s a 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 gS rFkk ;fn vkjksi i= izLrqr

[CRLMP-3469/2012]

[2023/RJJP/000374]

(5 of 6)

gksrk gS rks cpko lk{; ds le; lqlaxr gks ldrs gSA vfHk;qDr }kjk fy;s 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] vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶43

orZeku ekeys esa voekuuk ;kfpdk lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ls [kkfjt gqbZ gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk tks cpko fy;s x;s gS os vuqla/kku ;k fopkj.k dk fo"k; gSA /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djrs le; U;k;ky;ksa ds vf/kdkj lhfer gS rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa rd lhfer jguk gS vFkok fof/kd izfdz;k ds nq#i;ksx dk ekeyk gks] rks mu vkiokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gh bu 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd yksd lsod uxj ifj"kn dh Hkwfe ij vfrdze.k jksdus o ekSds dh fLFkfr dks ugha cnyus ds vuqdze esa ekSds ij iqfyl tkIrs ds lkFk igqaps Fks] rc vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk yksd lsodksa dk jkLrk jksddj muds fo#) cy dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s jktdk;Z esa ck/kk igqapkbZA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl ekeys esa laKs; vijk/k ds rF; izdV gks jgs gS rFkk vuqla/kku visf{kr gSA

¶44

mijksDr foospukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk

[CRLMP-3469/2012]

[2023/RJJP/000374]

(6 of 6)

iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶49

ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA *

¶50

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶51

Arun Kumar Mittal/50

Chhitar Mal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhitar Mal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Mubarik Ali S/O Hussain Mohammed Vs State of Rajasthan

Sameer Kaniya Son of Nanne Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Hans Kumar Sharma S/O Late Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Son of Shri Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Kumar S/O Ramdayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Kumar Rathi Son of Late Shri Mukund Das Rathi, Vs State of Rajasthan