Dismissed

Kallu @ Dharmendra Singh S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2024CRLMP/846/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that it did not fall under the rarest of rare cases. The Court rejected the argument that absence in a subsequent FIR proved false implication.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed; stay application disposed of.

Kallu @ Dharmendra Singh S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh Vs State… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:7660]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 846/2022

¶4

Kallu @ Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, R/o Adarsh Nagar-A, Police Station Mantown, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Sawaimadhopur.

¶9

S.h.o Police Station Kotwali, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶10

Vijay Ram S/o Ram Lal Meena, R/o Vigyan Nagar Sawaimadhopur, Police Station Kotwaoli, Sawaimadhopur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶14

Order

¶15

14/02/2024

¶16

With consent of counsel for petitioner, this criminal misc. Petition has been heard finally on merits.

¶17

Petitioner accused has filed instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR No.485/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sawaimadhopur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307 & 435 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

¶18

Having perused the impugned FIR, petitioner-accused is named along with other persons in the FIR and allegation against them is that they opened firing on the complainant and put his vehicle to fire. The investigation report in the impugned FIR is also available on record and as per the investigation report dated

[2024:RJ-JP:7660]

[CRLMP-846/2022]

(2 of 3)

06.03.2022, petitioner with other accused persons have been found guilty for the alleged offences and petitioner is stated to be absconded. Other accused persons named in the FIR i.e. Aneesh Khan, Firoz Rana and Magruf @ Makka, have been arrested.

¶23

Counsel for petitioner argued that the complainant is an habitual offender and after registering the impugned FIR, lodged another FIR No.06/2023 on 08.01.2023 alleging the similar nature of offence and leveling an allegation of opening firearm on him. In the subsequent FIR, petitioner has not been found to be available on the spot according to his call details and petitioner has falsely been implicated. Hence, he submits that in the present FIR as well, petitioner has falsely been implicated by the complainant, therefore, the FIR be quashed.

¶24

Heard. Considered.

¶25

On the face value of perusal of the impugned FIR, petitioner is named accused along with other accused persons against whom serious nature of allegations to open the Firearm and to put the vehicle of complainant on fire have been levelled. The law in respect of quashing of FIR is well settled and in that respect, a celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp(1) SCC 335] may be given. The allegations levelled in the FIR do constitute the commission of cognizable offence and the presence of petitioner on the spot in the present FIR is subject matter of investigation. If in another and subsequent FIR No.6/2023, referred by the counsel for petitioner, his presence has not been found on spot, same is not relevant to assume that the petitioner has falsely been

[2024:RJ-JP:7660]

[CRLMP-846/2022]

(3 of 3)

implicated in the present case. More so, as per the investigation report dated 06.03.2022, after investigation the petitioner has been found involved in the present criminal case and prima facie, allegations have been found proved. Petitioner has been observed to be absconded.

¶30

This Court is aware that in catena of cases decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the established judicial precedent is that the powers by the High Court to quash the FIR should be exercised with circumspection and sparingly in rarest of the rare cases.

¶31

Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case or to fall within the category of the “rarest of rare cases”, to exercise the jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR. The present case does not come within any of the criteria as expounded by the Supreme Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra).

¶32

As a result, the petition is devoid of merits and same is here by dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶35

RONAK/623

Kallu @ Dharmendra Singh S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu @ Dharmendra Singh S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh 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

Vikas Kumar Bairwa @ Vikki S/O Meghraj Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Singh Rathore and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Fahed Khan S/O Shri Firoz Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shrup Khan @ Sarup @ Shahrukh S/O Kala Kha Vs State of Rajasthan

Premchand Raigar S/O Mangal Chand Raigar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamata Jakhar W/O Prahlad Jat D/O Shivram Jakhar, Vs State of Rajasthan