HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6425/2020
Suresh Panwar S/o Late Shri M.l. Panwar, R/o House No. 234, B-
Block, Maharana Pratap Nagar,ajmer.
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Ajmer.
3. Investigation Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Ajmer.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
5. Bharat Vaishnav S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bhagwati Bhawan, 62/12, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer.
----Complainant/Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
Mr. Nishant Sharma for complainant
through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 01/07/2021 This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No.248/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Ajmer initially for the offence under Sections 323 & 341 IPC; later, Section 304 IPC added on account of death of father of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where on account of grave and sudden provocation by the deceased, he slapped him once only. Learned counsel submitted that deceased died after five days of the incident after he was (Downloaded on 01/07/2021 at 09:15:54 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6425/2020] subjected to surgery and cause of death could not be attributed to the petitioner which might be on account of complications during the surgery. He submitted that his case falls within the four corners of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and hence, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Surain Singh Vs. The State of Punjab: (2017) 5 SCC 796 in support of his submissions.
Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposing the prayer submitted that during the course of investigation, offences under Sections 323, 341 & 304 IPC have been found to be proved against the petitioner. They submitted that the petitioner has, during the course of his interrogation in pursuance of direction of this Court, admitted that scuffle took place in between him and the deceased and hence, no case is made out for quashing the FIR.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the deceased has received injury on account of scuffle between the parties. The petitioner himself has admitted during the course of his interrogation that he slapped the deceased resulting into his fall down on hard surface. He has submitted that his case falls within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The evidence on record in the shape of statements of the prosecution witnesses, CCTV footage and other material including postmortem report of the body of the deceased reveals involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Since, the material on record discloses commission of cognizable offence against the petitioner, the FIR in question cannot be quashed. (Downloaded on 01/07/2021 at 09:15:54 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6425/2020] The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Surain Singh (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to him. In that case, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 IPC was converted to conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC making following observations:-
"24) Thus, in entirety, considering the factual scenario of the case on hand, the legal evidence on record and in the background of legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra, the inevitable conclusion is that the act of the appellant-accused was not a cruel act and the accused did not take undue advantage of the deceased. The scuffle took place in the heat of passion and all the requirements under Section 300 Exception 4 of the IPC have been satisfied. Therefore, the benefit of Exception 4 under Section 300 IPC is attracted to the fact situations and the appellant-accused is entitled to this benefit.
25) Thus, considering the factual background and the legal position set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the appropriate conviction of the appellant-accused would be under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment for 10 years would meet the ends of justice."
The petitioner himself admits that his case falls within the ambit of the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/27 (Downloaded on 01/07/2021 at 09:15:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)