HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4754/2022 Santosh Bansal W/o Sh. Ganesh Raj Bansal, Aged About 50 Years, I-273 Civil Lines Hanumangarh Junction Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. The Municipal Board Hanumangarh, Through Its Executive Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
01/11/2022
1. By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the FIR No.381/2010 of ACB CPS Jaipur, Out Post - Hanumangarh for the offence under sections 13(1)(D) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 467, 468, 471, 477 A & 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR in question could not have been registered against the petitioner, particularly when no proceedings for cancellation of the strip of land in question have been taken by the State.
3. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 06.09.2017, passed by a coordinate Bench of this (Downloaded on 03/11/2022 at 08:29:24 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4754/2022] Court in a bunch of matters led by S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.564/2012 : Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan.
4. Before adverting to the submissions made by Mr. Purohit, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had very recently filed another misc. petition (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4060/2022) albeit challenging the order dated 30.03.2022, whereby the trial Court had issued direction for further investigation. The said petition was dismissed and the order dated 30.03.2022, has been upheld.
5. The petitioner has yet again approached this Court with a challenge to the very registration of the FIR, which was registered way back in the year 2010.
6. In response to Court's observation regarding maintainability of the present petition, Mr. Purohit vehemently argued that the occasion for challenging the FIR had not arisen to the petitioner as the Investigating Officer had proposed a negative final report in relation to the impugned FIR and the cause of action to challenge the same has accrued only after the order dated 30.03.2022, when the trial Court issued direction for further investigation.
7. In the opinion of this Court, it is too late in the day to lay challenge to such FIR, particularly when the petitioner had this option available to challenge the same when he had preferred earlier misc. petition (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4060/2022).
8. It is to be noted that the petitioner had earlier also filed a petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2881/2011, when the FIR was registered against the petitioner in the year 2010. The same was however withdrawn in wake of the fact that the Investigating Officer had furnished a negative final report. (Downloaded on 03/11/2022 at 08:29:24 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4754/2022]
9. In the opinion of this Court, the argument advanced by Mr. Purohit is unsustainable in the eye of law. If the petitioner felt aggrieved of the registration of the FIR, he ought to have challenged the FIR at the very outset or at least while challenging the order dated 30.03.2022.
10. The present petition is an attempt to stall the proceedings, which have now been undertaken by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the order for further investigation.
11. Needless to observe that the investigation is underway and stopping such investigation, at such belated stage, would be abuse of process of law.
12. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code.
13. The misc. petition, therefore, fails.
14. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 159-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 03/11/2022 at 08:29:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)