Rajasthan High Court
Ajay Kumar S/O Sanjay vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 April, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 27/2020
Ajay Kumar S/o Sanjay, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Togda
Swaroop Singh Ps Jhunjhunu Dist. Jhunjhunu Presently R/o
Jhunjhunu Ps Kotwali Jhunjhunu Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manoj Kumar S/o Ram Niwas, R/o Ganwali Patan Sikar
Dist. Sikar Raj. Presently Posted As Head Constable Ps
Sadar Jhunjhunu Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
08/04/2021
1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings pending
in the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu in Sessions
Case No.45/2019 for the offences under Sections 332, 353, 504 of
IPC and 3(1)(M) & 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an
FIR No.0182/2019 at Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu, District
Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 332, 353, 504 of IPC
and sections 3(1)(M) & 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in reference
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-27/2020]
to which the petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2019. The police
after investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the
offences under sections 332, 353, 504 of IPC and sections 3(1)(M)
& 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court after going
through the charge-sheet submitted by the police agency took
cognizance against the petitioner for the offences as alleged
against him in the charge-sheet and thereafter the trial is going on
in Sessions Case No.45/2019 in the Court of Special Judge,
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Cases, Jhunjhunu.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present false FIR
has been lodged against the petitioner just to implicate him in the
non-cognizable offences. Counsel relied upon the order passed by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principle Seat, Jodhpur in the
matter of Jai Jinendra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B.
Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.1531/2018, decided on 20.11.2018
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and
submitted that from the FIR itself it reveals that there is allegation
against the petitioner of insulting and abusing the complainant
with caste at public place and the allegation levelled against the
petitioner is yet to be proved during the trial. Learned Public
Prosecutor further submitted that the quashing of FIR should be
exception and rarity than original rule and in support of his
contentions, he relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Yogendra Singh Jadon & Anr. Reported in SCC 2020 (12) 588
where in Para-5 it has been held as under:-
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-27/2020]
"5. We find that the High Court has
examined the entire issue as to whether the
offence under Sections 420 and 120-B is
made out or not at pre trial stage. The
respondents are beneficiary of the grant of
cash credit limit when their father was the
President of the Bank. The power under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where
the allegations are required to be proved in
court of law. The manner in which loan was
advanced without any proper documents
and the fact that the respondents are
beneficiary of benevolence of their father
prima facie disclose an offence under
Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It may be
stated that other officials of the Bank have
been charge sheeted for an offence under
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The
charge under Section 420 IPC is not an
isolated offence but it has to be read along
with the offences under the Act to which the
respondents may be liable with the aid of
Section 120-B of IPC."
5. Learned Public Prosecutor further relied on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Skoda
Auto Volkswagen Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
reported in AIR (SC) 2021 (Page No-931) where in Para 41 it
has been held as under;-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever
since the decision of the Privy Council in
King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed,
the law is well settled that Courts would not
thwart any investigation. It is only in cases
where no cognizable offence or offence of
any kind is disclosed in the first information
report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on. As cautioned by this
Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,
the power of quashing should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining a complaint, the quashing of
which is sought, the Court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-27/2020]
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or in the complaint. In S.M.
Datta vs. State of Gujarat, this Court again
cautioned that criminal proceedings ought
not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
Quashing of a complaint should rather be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if
a perusal of the first information report leads
to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law
courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two
organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities and one ought not to
tread over the other sphere."
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. This petition filed by the petitioner deserves to dismissed for
the reasons; firstly, there is allegation in the FIR against the
petitioner of abusing and insulting the complainant with caste at
the public place, secondly, the specific allegation has been levelled
by the complainant against the petitioner in the FIR and the same
is required to be proved during trial and thirdly, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise
the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. In that view of the matter, this criminal misc. petition is
dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh /68
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
