Dismissed

Surender Singh S/O Shri Rajpal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2023CRLW/384/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a warranty petition seeking life liberty protection and compensation for alleged examination leakage cases, noting the offences require custodial interrogation. The court also dismissed a separate petition to quash the FIR, stating the case involves cognizable offences needing detailed investigation despite lawyer absence.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; no relief granted; pending applications discounted.

Surender Singh S/O Shri Rajpal Singh Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 384/2023

¶3

Surender Singh S/o Shri Rajpal Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 462 2Nd Floor, B-1 Janakpuri A-5/82, B Janakpuri New Delhi110058

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

S.h.o. Nimka Thana Police Station, Nayabas Road, Nimka Thana, Sikar District Rajasthan- 332713.

¶8

Harlal Singh S/o Maleeram Jat, R/o Rapat Gir, Suchna Muljim Uddaram, Dadi Ka Rampura, Ringius, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1266/2023

¶12

Surender Singh S/o Shri Rajpal Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 462 2Nd Floor, B-1 Janakpuri A-5/82, B Janakpuri New Delhi110058

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶16

Harlal Singh S/o Maleeram Jat, R/o Rapat Gir, Suchna Muljim Uddaram, Dadi Ka Rampura, Ringius, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Dy. GA / PP

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order

¶20

16/03/2023

¶21

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 384/2023:-

¶22

No one appears for the petitioner.

¶23

Heard learned Dy. GA for the State.

¶24

[CRLW-384/2023]

¶25

(2 of 3)

¶26

Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last several weeks, though, they have no grievance against the Court administration.

¶27

The Court is aware of the dictum decided in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 that such non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law even in absence of the parties and their Advocates.

¶28

The petitioner has sought for protection of his life and liberty as well as for compensation for being dragged in frivolous cases registered relating to offences of making question papers of the examination out before the examination for ulterior motive. The nature of offences alleged in the FIR No.0427/2021 registered with Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District-Sikar for offences under Sections 420, 120 B of IPC, 3 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 may require custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the offences alleged have social ramification and impact.

¶29

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.

¶32

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1266/2023:-

¶33

No one appears for the petitioner.

¶34

Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶35

[CRLW-384/2023]

¶36

(3 of 3)

¶37

Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last several weeks, though, they have no grievance against the Court administration.

¶38

The Court is aware of the dictum decided in Ex-Capt.

¶39

Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2

¶40

SCC 45 that such non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law even in absence of the parties and their Advocates.

¶41

The petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR No.427/2021 registered with Police Station Nimka Thana, DistrictSikar for offences under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Sections 3 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention from Unfair Means) Act, 1992.

¶42

The FIR discloses indulgement of different persons in making question papers of the examination out before examination. Since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence having social ramification a detailed investigation is needed.

¶43

Hence, the instant petition stands dismissed, as devoid of any merit.

¶44

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶45

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶46

Sunita/4-5

Surender Singh S/O Shri Rajpal Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh S/O Shri Rajpal Singh v. the 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

Hariom Yadav S/O Shri Brajkishor Yadav, Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyaveer Singh S/O Shri Rambharosi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rishipal S/O Narendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Lucky Kanwar W/O Rajulal Jat D/O Lala Kanwar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Lekhraj S/O Surajmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) Vs Hotilal S/O Shri Bhagwan Singh