Dismissed

Kamal Mahavar S/O Shree Mishri Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2024CRLMP/503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order directing summons issuance under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The bench upheld the lower court's decision citing lack of evidence and no contract, validating the procedural step without registration of FIR.

What did the court decide?

Application for interference with the impugned order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Kamal Mahavar S/O Shree Mishri Lal Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:27599]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 503/2024

¶4

Kamal Mahavar S/o Shree Mishri Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 3618 Basan Walo Ka Mohalla, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, Jaipur.

¶8

Sidharth Jaiswal S/o Shri Suresh Jaiswal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 4/95, Vidhyut Abhiyanta Colony, Sector 4, Malvia Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Parashar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

03/07/2024

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and respondent were colleagues. The respondent taking advantage of the friendship secured Rs. 3,85,000/- from the complainant, under the assurance to purchase a car for him and to start a taxi-service business while sharing the proceeds. It is submitted that a false claim was presented by the respondent and upon asking about the said money, the recovery qua the same was not made. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent under the provisions of section 420 and 406 of IPC.

¶15

In the instant matter, application was filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 31.10.2023, the learned Court below, due to lack of/insufficient evidence and absence of

[2024:RJ-JP:27599]

[CRLMP-503/2024]

(2 of 3)

any contract/agreement, directed the matter to be carried out under provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶20

It is submitted that when there were specific allegations against the respondents of committing a cognizable offence under Section 420 IPC, the matter should have been registered under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and the same would have been sent to the concerned Police Station, instead of the same being sent for recording of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶21

In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the dictum encapsulated in AIR 1961 SC 986 titled as Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Anr.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the impugned order (annexure-1) which reproduced as under:-

¶24

“ifjoknh ds vf/koDrk mifLFkrA ifjoknh dk ekSf[kd ijh{k.k iwoZ esa fd;k x;kA ifjokn dks /kkjk 156¼3½ lh-vkj-ih-lh- ds rgr vuqla/kku gsrq izsf’kr djus dk fuosnu fd;k ftl ij lquk x;kA fyfid fjiksVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA eqrkfcd fyfid fjiksVZ izdj.k U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk gSA rF;kRed fjiksVZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA “kiFk i= ifjoknh ds }kjk is”k fd;k x;k gSA ifjoknh us tkfgj fd;k fd vkjksih ls mldh vPNh tkudkjh gksus ds dkj.k 4 yk[k :i;s esa vkjksih dks xkM+h [kjhndj VSDlh ds :i esa pykus gsrq fn;k Fkk ftldks ykSVkus ds ckcr 1 yk[k 26 gtkj :i;s dk pSd vkjksih us fn;k tks vuknfjr gks x;kA ftlds laca/k esa vyx ls eqdnek ntZ gSA

¶25

“ks’k jkf”k vkjksih us gMi yh] vkfn ds dFku fd;s gSA

¶26

i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k i=koyh esa nLrkosth lk{; ds :i e s a vyx vyx fd”rks esa vkjksih dks jkf”k Hksth tkuk nf”kZr gksrk gS xkMh [kjhn dj pykus tkus ckcr ,xzhes.V is”k ugh fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izdj.k ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izdj.k dks /kkjk ,oa 156 ¼3½ lhvkjihlh ds rgr izsf’kr u fd;k tkdj izdj.k esa 200 lh vkj ih lh dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ifjoknh us le; pkgkA i=koyh okLrs lk{; fnukad 06-11-2023 dks is”k gksA ”

¶27

[2024:RJ-JP:27599]

¶28

[CRLMP-503/2024]

¶29

It is noted that the learned Court below, while adjudicating the instant matter has duly considered the matter on merits/demerits and has given a justified reasonable finding. It is explicitly mentioned in the said order that due to absence of any contract and lack of evidence the matter is referred under the provisions of section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Therefore, considering the aforementioned facts and upon a perusal of the record, this Court validates the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 as it is sans discrimination and is proper, justified and valid as per the provisions of law.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶32

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶33

ANIL SHARMA /308

Kamal Mahavar S/O Shree Mishri Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Mahavar S/O Shree Mishri 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

Prabhat S/O Kamad Raiger, Vs State of Rajasthan

Safi Mohammad Son of Mohammad Yakub Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Hawa Singh S/O Shri Jaimal Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Mool Chand Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Taar Mohammad S/O Juhar Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Ram Niri Wife of Shri Ram Niwas, Vs State of Rajasthan