Remanded

Nirmal Singh v. State through Pp and Anr.

Rajasthan HC21 Feb 2024CRLMP/2440/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside both the impugned revisional order and the order of cognizance. The judgment held that taking cognizance on a second complaint for similar facts after a final police report was illegal, and failure to record the complainant's personal statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. rendered the order defective. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of cognizance and revision were set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court to consider the complaint afresh in light of the defects.

Nirmal Singh Vs State through Pp and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:9011]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2440/2010

¶4

Nirmal Singh S/o Late Shri Hinghlajdan r/o D1, Ashkay Bhawan Banipark, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner-Accused

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Through PP

¶8

Smt. Chanda Devi W/o Shri Prakash Chand Ostwal, R/o S18, Krishna Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur Through (Mukhtyar) Prakash Chand Ostwal

¶9

----Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Brahmanand Sandu,
	Mr.	Abhimanyu Singh Sandu
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Chandragupt Chopra,PP
	Mr.	S.C. Gupta

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

21/02/2024

¶14

Petitioner filed instant criminal misc. petition, assailing the order dated 12.01.2010 passed in revision petition No.144/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing his revision petition and affirming the order dated 01.12.2005 in case No. 5337/2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.11, Jaipur (City), Smt. Chanda Devi Vs. Nirmal Singh whereby cognizance for offence under Section 447 IPC has been taken against the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the cognizance has been taken on the criminal complaint filed by nonpetitioner No.2 Smt. Chanda Devi on 05.10.2005. Whereas prior to that non-petitioner No.2 filed one more complaint, which was sent for investigation to Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and

[2024:RJ-JP:9011]

[CRLMP-2440/2010]

(2 of 4)

after investigation, Police submitted negative final report, which was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate. Hence, on the similar set of facts, the cognizance taken in the second complaint, stands illegal and contrary to the mandate of law.

¶20

In Addition, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the complainant Smt. Chanda Devi herself did not appear to make her statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and Without recording statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate should not have taken the cognizance, since in view of mandate of Section 200 Cr.P.C, statements of Power of Attorney-Holder of the complainant cannot be considered. According to Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is essential for the complainant herself to appear to record her statements. Thus, on this count also, the cognizance order suffers from patent defect.

¶21

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the complainant filed the instant complaint with the allegation that the petitioner-accused has entered into the plot in question, of her ownership and possession, then raised constructions of a ‘ Gumti ’ and dispossessed her. He submits that in fact, the plot was already in possession of accused-petitioner. In this regard, a civil suit was also instituted, which has been decided in favour of the petitioner vide judgment dated 08.06.2012, whereagainst the non-petitioner No.2 complainant has preferred the first appeal being S.B. Civil First Appeal No.399/2012 before the High Court, which is pending.

¶22

Hence, his submissions is that in view of afore-referred contentions, the order of cognizance is wholly, against mandate of law and revisional Court too could not advert to such illegalities in

[2024:RJ-JP:9011]

[CRLMP-2440/2010]

(3 of 4)

the cognizance order and did not exercise its revisional powers. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, on this point is well clear as expounded in case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee Vs. State of UP:Criminal Appeal No.1400/2022, decided on 23.08.2022 , [2022 Live Law (SC) 331] , re-iterating the judicial precedent settled in case of T. T. Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors [(2001) 6 SCC 181].

¶27

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and from perusal of record, this Court finds that points raised by counsel for the petitioner are material, which emanates from the record. In respect of filing the previous complaint by complainant, averments are mentioned in the present complaint itself in para No.5. The previous complaint is based on similar set of facts, which is an undisputed fact. In the previous complaint, FIR No.523/2005 was registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and after investigation, final report has been submitted by the Police, which has also been accepted by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 08.05.2006. If such facts would have been considered by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, there could not be any occasion to take cognizance for the similar nature of offences on the second complaint. Second criminal complaint, on the similar set of facts and substratum on which first complaint was filed by same complainant, is not permissible in law and unsustainable, as per the ratio decidendi, expounded by the Apex Court in judgments, referred by the counsel for petitioner.

[2024:RJ-JP:9011]

[CRLMP-2440/2010]

(4 of 4)

This substantive defect in the order of cognizance, has not been noticed by the Revisional Court, which ought to have been corrected in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. 5. In addition, adjudication of rights of parties, including ownership and possession have already been adjudicated on merits in the civil suit in favour of petitioner, which plot has been found in possession of accused petitioner. 6. Complainant-Chanda Devi, herself in person did not get recorded her statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which is also another defect and grave illegalities in the matter. 7. Having adverted to all such peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court finds that both impugned orders suffer from patent defect, jurisdictional error of law and leads to manifest injustice with the petitioner. Hence, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.c., grants indulgence in the matter to prevent abuse of process of law and for ends of justice, deems it just and proper to set aside both impugned orders.

¶32

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the trial Court and the concerned Judicial Magistrate shall consider the complaint afresh and decide the issue as to whether cognizance can be taken or not? in the light of the aforesaid observations.

¶33

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith alongwith copy of this order.

¶34

Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶36

TN/414

Nirmal Singh v. State through Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh v. State through Pp and Anr.

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

Smt. Moetya Devi W/O Shri Ram Swaroop Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulli Devi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajesh Samota @ Raju Mota S/O Rameshwarlal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jahid Khan S/O Ajab Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu S/O Heera Lal Rao Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahees S/O Hakmuddin Vs State of Rajasthan