Allowed

Kuldeep S/O Sh. Sanjay Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2023CRLR/397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed criminal revision petition setting aside order of cognizance. Held that trial court acted mechanically without considering FSL and police closure reports. Matter remanded for fresh consideration with direction to pass reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Order of cognizance dated 01.10.2021 set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration; directions to pass reasoned order.

Kuldeep S/O Sh. Sanjay Meghwal Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:35947]

¶2

WHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 397/2022

¶4

Kuldeep S/o Sh. Sanjay Meghwal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Kulod, Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

Mukesh Kumar S/o Ramniwas Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Samapur, Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. 2. Hoshiyar Singh S/o Chunna Ram, R/o Kadwasra Ki Dhaaniudawas, Sadar Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Akshat Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Imran Khan, PP
	Mr. Hem Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

06/10/2023

¶14

Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from order of cognizance dated 01.10.2021 in a matter arising out of F.I.R. No. 247/2019 P.S. Sadar Jhunjhunu whereby learned trial court has taken cognizance under Section 363, 366A, 366, 376-D, 506 IPC and 3/4, 17/18 of POCSO Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that F.I.R. was registered after a delay of two days when prosecutrix returned from alleged elopement but police after investigation found that the allegation made against both the petitioners were false. He also submitted that on

[2023:RJ-JP:35947]

[CRLR-397/2022]

(2 of 4)

04.07.2020, the trial court has directed for FSL examination but after FSL report on 01.10.2021 the Court has proceeded to take cognizance without considering the grounds of final closure report. He further submitted that this is a false and fabricated case wherein even considering the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has filed negative final report before the trial court but without assigning any reason for disagreement with the report the cognizance order was passed by trial court. He also submitted that the impugned order was passed without application of mind.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant.

¶21

Learned counsel for complainant submitted that both the petitioners were named in the report and further their act were explained by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also submitted that the trial court is not required to assign detailed reasons for taking cognizance.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶23

A perusal of record indicated that for incident of 20.08.2019 F.I.R. was registered on 22.08.2019 only after return of victim from alleged kidnapping and incident of rape. Victim was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she named five persons. Police after detailed investigation and after collecting mobile call records came to the conclusion that victim registered this report after concealing real facts. During investigation names of other individuals were also came to notice of police and police had collected call details of all such persons including present

[2023:RJ-JP:35947]

[CRLR-397/2022]

(3 of 4)

petitioners but after detailed investigation it was found that the allegation levelled against present petitioners were false and baseless.

¶28

After submission of closure report before the Special Court, learned trial court on 04.07.2020 directed the police to collect sample of Kuldeep and Mukesh and same be forwarded to FSL for examination. The report dated 23.12.2020 was filed before the learned trial court and no specific information was given by FSL.

¶29

Even if on 01.12.2021 learned trial court considering the fact that on 04.07.2020 the order of cognizance was kept reserved for want of FSL report but new FSL report has been received, therefore, in continuation of order dated 04.07.2020, the trial court has passed the order of cognizance against the petitioners.

¶30

On 04.07.2020 the Presiding Officer of the Court was different than the Presiding Officer who passed the order on 01.10.2021. A perusal of order dated 04.07.2020 further makes clear that no specific reasons were assigned by the Special Court for intention to take cognizance against both the petitioners or any of the petitioners but without considering the duty assigned under the law the trial court passed the mechanical order on 01.10.2021. The order dated 01.10.2021 was passed in haste and without considering the material on record, particularly after ignoring the reasoning of police while submitting negative final report.

¶31

In view of aforesaid, the order dated 01.10.2021 is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh consideration on the basis of material on record.

[2023:RJ-JP:35947]

[CRLR-397/2022]

(4 of 4)

In view of aforesaid, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the order of cognizance dated 01.10.2021 passed by learned Special Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration on the basis of material available on record with direction to pass appropriate and reasoned order.

¶36

The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 30.10.2023.

¶37

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶38

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶39

CHETNA BEHRANI /85

Kuldeep S/O Sh. Sanjay Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep S/O Sh. Sanjay Meghwal 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

Rohitash S/O Shri Mulchand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Madholal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Balchand S/O Shri Daulatram Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Shuguna Poulty Farm Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mukesh Kumar S/O Roshanlal B/C Jatav Vs Rachna W/O Mukesh Kumar D/O Rambabu B/C Jatav