Dismissed

Suman Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2023CRLR/1330/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner challenged the Special Judge's order accepting the police's Final Report in an FIR concerning robbery and outrage of modesty. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the trial court's decision as there was no prosecutability of the case due to insufficient evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; impugned order upholding the Final Report is dismissed; stay petition also dismissed.

Suman Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42980]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1330/2023

¶4

Suman Kanwar W/o Jitendra Singh, Aged About 47 Years, B/cRajput, R/o- Mithdi, P.s. Nawa Shahar, Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Ramswaroop S/o Rameshwar, R/o- Mithdi, Teh. Nawa, Dist. Nagaur.

¶9

Jiwni W/o Ramswaroop, R/o- Mithdi, Teh. Nawa, Dist. Nagaur.

¶10

Omprakash S/o Shree Rameshwar, R/o- Mithdi, Teh. Nawa, Dist. Nagaur.

¶11

Kiran W/o Omprakash, R/o- Mithdi, Teh. Nawa, Dist. Nagaur.

¶12

Ramkaran S/o Rameshwar, R/o- Mithdi, Teh. Nawa, Dist. Nagaur.

¶13

Sharda Devi W/o Ramkaran, R/o- Mithdi, Teh. Nawa, Dist. Nagaur.

¶14

8.	Rampyari W/o	Rameshwar, R/o- Mithdi, Teh.	Nawa, Dist.
	Nagaur.
		----	Respondents
For	Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sikander Khan
For	Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi,PP

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶16

Order

¶17

11/12/2023

¶18

Instant revision petition has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Merta whereby the learned Judge dismissed the protest petition and accepted the FR filed by the police in FIR No. 89/2022.

[2023:RJ-JD:42980]

[CRLR-1330/2023]

(2 of 3)

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant filed a written report before the Police station to the effect that on 27.04.2022, in the evening, when she and her niece were sitting in her ration shop, at that time, the accused respondents forcibly entered into her shop and looted a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Respondent Ramkaran outraged modesty of her niece and another accused pulled her ‘dupatta; and hurled abuses.

¶23

On this report, the police registered the case being FIR No. 89/2022 and after investigation, submitted FR that no case is made out against the accused. The petitioner filed a protest petition before the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Merta. After considering the evidence collected during investigation and recording statement of witnesses, the court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases No.1, Merta accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition vide order dated 24.05.2023.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the material aspect of the matter, the trial court mechanically rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. It is argued that on the basis of statement of the complainant and witnesses recorded, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused persons. It is argued that the petitioner has clearly stated that the accused persons had entered into her house and threatened her and outraged modesty of her niece and beaten them. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. It is argued that the investigating officer has not investigated the matter in correct perspective and therefore, it is

[2023:RJ-JD:42980]

[CRLR-1330/2023]

(3 of 3)

prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the trial court has discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition, which does not called for any interference.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned so also the record.

¶31

It is not disputed that after thorough investigation, the police submitted a final report to the effect that no case is made out against the accused persons as the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case against the accused persons by adducing independent witnesses. Learned trial court after considering the Final report submitted by the police so also recording statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C, rejected the protest petition on the said ground by way of a detailed order. In the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for disbelieving the negative Final report filed by the police after thorough investigation. Learned court below after considering the entire material on record, has accepted the Final report filed by the police. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 24.05.2023. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Stay petition is also dismissed.

¶33

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶34

57-BJSH/-

Suman Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kanwar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Birda Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Badaniya and Ors. Vs State

Abdul Hakim @ Bhuriya Vs State

Vicky @ Inderjeet Vs State of Rajasthan