Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2023CRLR/616/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Special Leave Criminal Revision Petition challenging an order under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The impugned order rejected a protest petition, relying on the police Final Report stating no case was made out. The Court held there was no illegality or perversity in the trial court's acceptance of the FR and dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with no costs.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38024]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 616/2020

¶4

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Roopa Ram, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State, Through P.p.

¶8

Raju Singh S/o Shri Mal Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶9

Madan Singh S/o Shri Mal Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶10

Naru Singh S/o Shri Mal Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶11

Mangu Singh S/o Shri Sharwan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶12

Nathu Singh S/o Shri Sharwan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/ o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶13

Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶14

Smt. Prem Kanwar W/o Shri Madan Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶15

Chattarpal Singh S/o Shri Tej Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶16

Vikram Singh S/o Shri Raju Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Aasalsar, Tehsil Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh Mr. R.S. Choudhary

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶20

Order

¶21

06/11/2023

¶22

Instant revision petition has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.07.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Churu whereby

[2023:RJ-JD:38024]

[CRLR-616/2020]

(2 of 3)

the learned Judge dismissed the protest petition and accepted the FR filed by the police in FIR No. 362/2019.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant complainant lodged an Fir No. 362/2019 at Police Station, Sardarshahar stating therein that on 04.06.2019, the accused respondents entered in to the house of the petitioner and forcibly dragged him out of the house and tied him to Kikar tree and also snatched his gold earing etc. They also threatened of dire consequences, if any complaint is raised by the petitioner.

¶28

The which police registered the case being FIR No. 362/2019 and after investigation, submitted FR that no case is made out against the accused respondents. The appellant filed a protest petition before the learned trial court. After considering the evidence collected during investigation and recording statement of witnesses, the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition vide order dated 15.07.2020.

¶29

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 respondents. It is argued that the petitioner has clearly stated that the accused respondents had beaten, threatened and humiliated the appellant using caste oriented language. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the accused respondents. It is argued that the investigating officer has not investigated the matter in correct perspective and therefore, it is prayed that the

[2023:RJ-JD:38024]

[CRLR-616/2020]

(3 of 3)

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

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 respondents as the appellant failed to make out a prima facie case against the respondent. 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 orders dated 15.07.2020. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶37

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶38

212-BJSH/-

Mukesh Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. State

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

Sandeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Borana Vs State

Ravi Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurmeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Veer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan