Dismissed

Amit Kumar S/O Banwari Lal , v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CRLMP/1340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed petitions seeking to quash an FIR alleging assault and property destruction. Relying on Choudhary Bhajanlal, the court held allegations constitute cognizable offences warranting investigation, refusing to stifle prosecution.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing petitions dismissed; interim stay order dated 15.07.2021 vacated; investigation directed to proceed.

Amit Kumar S/O Banwari Lal , Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6748]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1340/2023

¶4

Amit Kumar S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Satkabir Nagar Bhagat Ji Colony Shaukeen Property Ke Pass Tapukara Tijara Alwar (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Bhiwadi Raj.

¶9

Sho, Police Station, Tapukara, Police Distt. Bhiwadi (Alwar) Raj.

¶10

Bhajan Lal S/o Matadeen, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Burheda Kushkheda Bhiwadi P.s. Bhiwadi Police Distt. Bhiwadi Alwar (Raj).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2764/2021

¶14

Pushpa Devi Wife Of Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Tapukara, Police Station Tapukara, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶18

Superintendent Of Police, Bhiwadi.

¶19

Station House Officer, Police Station-Tapukara, District Alwar.

¶20

Bhajan Lal S/o Matadin, Aged About 32 Years, Village Burera, Tehsili Tijara, District Alwar, Raj.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta Mr. Gajendra Singh Kachawa for Mr. Sourabh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. B L Nasuna Mr. Rahul Tiwari

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶24

08/02/2024

¶25

Separate petitions have been filed by Son-Amit Kumar and mother-Pushpa Devi, seeking to quash the FIR No.78/2021 registered at Police Station Tapukda, Police District Bhiwadi (Alwar) for offences under Sections 336, 323, 341 & 427 of IPC.

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:6748]

[CRLMP-1340/2023]

Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record, including FIR questioned herein.

¶30

From perusal of the impugned FIR, it transpires that there is a dispute between parties to raise construction over their respective plots and when on 24.02.2021, the complainant was raising construction, petitioners i.e. Pushpa Devi and Amit Kumar along with other persons assaulted the complainant and broke down his two teeths and in that fight his jaw also got injured. There are allegations that petitioners also broke other properties; the front glass of the vehicle of complainant and threw stones and bricks on his house and cause loss to him.

¶31

Perusal of allegations in the FIR prima facie do constitute cognizable offences, on which the investigation is required to be made. Counsel for petitioner submits that in fact the plot whereupon complainant has raised construction, belongs to them and entire FIR is based on false facts. Be that as it may, same is subject matter of investigation. At the stage of quashing the FIR, the Court is required to examine the FIR on its face value whether it give rise to cognizable offences. The correctness/ truthfulness of allegations or the defence sought to be put forth by accusedpetitioners is not supposed to be examined by the High Court at this stage in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. The case of petitioners do not cover in any of the seven criterion, prescribed by the Supreme Court in the celebrated of State of

¶32

Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal [(1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 335] .

[2024:RJ-JP:6748]

[CRLMP-1340/2023]

(3 of 3)

In case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj [(2014) 10 SCC 616] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating principles laid down in the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] , on the scope of exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, held as under:-

¶37

“It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.”

¶38

In view of afore-referred discussion and reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and as a consequence, present petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

¶39

The interim stay order dated 15.07.2021 stands vacated, the investigation in the impugned FIR may be carried out.

¶40

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶41

RONAK/54-55

Amit Kumar S/O Banwari Lal , v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar S/O Banwari Lal , 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar @ Rakesh Sain Son of Shri Kallu Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Kumar Singh Vs Rana Ran and Anr.

Mohammad Rahim Son of Shri Yusuf, Vs State of Rajasthan

Garima Chouhan W/O- Dinesh Singh Chouhan, D/O Krishnapal Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Saleem Khan S/O Shri Nijam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.