Rajasthan High Court
Ajit @ Gopichand S/O Narayan B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Satish Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4936/2019
1. Ajit @ Gopichand S/o Narayan, R/o Netawali Dhani, Tehsil
Renwal, Ps Renwal, District Jaipur.
2. Roshan Singh S/o Narayan, R/o Netawali Dhani, Tehsil
Renwal, Ps Renwal, District Jaipur.
3. Dharti Singh @ Gograj S/o Narayan, R/o Netawali Dhani,
Tehsil Renwal, Ps Renwal, District Jaipur.
4. Samundar Singh S/o Narayan, R/o Netawali Dhani, Tehsil
Renwal, Ps Renwal, District Jaipur.
5. Deshraj Yadav S/o Shri Ramphool Yadav, R/o Nenshiya,
Post Lasadiya, Phagi, Jaipur.
6. Vinod Kumar @ Vikki S/o Shri Lalaram Meena, R/o
Daulatpura, Kotda, Harmada, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP.
2. Smt. Arti Meena D/o Damodar Meena, W/o Samundar
Singh, R/o Govindpura, Kalwad Road, Kardhani, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP
Mr. N.K. Meena, through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA
Order
05/08/2021
1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of charge sheet No.310/2018 arising out of FIR
No.71/2018 registered at Police Station Rainwal, District Jaipur for
offences under Sections 323, 341, 365, 143, 308 and 342 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-4936/2019]
2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
material made available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the
police after investigation has submitted charge sheet in the
matter, but the petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the
criminal proceedings is maintainable even after filing of challan. All
the allegations levelled against the petitioners are totally false and
fabricated, without conducting investigation in fair and impartial
manner. Cross cases were registered regarding the same incident.
Minor child of the accused-petitioners was kidnapped by the
complainant and her companions. The accused-petitioners in
exercise of their right to private defence had to save the child. No
offence whatsoever is made out against them. The charge sheet
filed against them under Section 299 CrPC deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that on filing of charge sheet, the trial court was obliged to call the
petitioners by issuing summons, but it has straightaway issued
arrest warrants, which should be converted into bailable one. He
placed reliance on Anuj Jermi Vs. State [Manu/TN/1086/2012],
Govind Raghe Khairnar Vs. Khan Wahid Ali Maddan Khan [1988
SCC Online Bom 300], Vineet Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [(2017)13
SCC 369], Prashaant Bharti Vs. State NCT of Delhi [(2013)9 SCC
293], Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal [(2007)12
SCC 1], and Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2014)3 SCC 321].
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-4936/2019]
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in this
incident the complainant has received as many as 19 injuries. The
version put forth on behalf of the petitioners is false and after
thought. The FIR or criminal proceedings can only be quashed
under Section 482 CrPC when no offence is made out from bare
perusal of contents of the FIR. Whereas, in this case all
ingredients of the crime are mentioned in the FIR. The accused
petitioners did not cooperate in the investigation and absconded,
therefore, the police has filed charge sheet against them under
Section 299 CrPC. The accused-petitioners are habitual offenders.
The petitioners are free to raise all their objections before the trial
court. The petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and
supported the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant.
7. Heard. Considered.
8. On bare perusal of the record, it is clear that it is not a case
where contents of FIR do not constitute any offence. Rather, after
investigation in the matter challan under Sections 323, 341, 365,
143, 308 and 342 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v)(a), 3(1)(w) and 3(1)
(s) SC/ST (PA) Act has been presented before the trial court. The
accused-petitioners (1)Ajit @ Gopichand, (2)Roshan Singh,
(3)Dharti Singh @ Gograj, (4)Samundar Singh, (5)Deshraj Yadav
and (6)Vinod Kumar @ Vikki did not cooperate in investigation,
therefore they have been declared proclaimed offenders and
charge sheet against them has been filed under Section 299 CrPC.
They are still required for investigation.
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-4936/2019]
9. In view of legal position as expounded in State of Haryana
Vs. Bhajan Lal: [1992 (supp)1 SCC 335] and M/s.
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
[(2021) SCC Online SC 315], the criminal proceedings can only
be quashed where the FIR or the police report do not constitute
any offence. Whereas in this case as indicated above, not only the
contents of FIR, but police after collecting necessary evidence
during the course of investigation has filed the charge sheet under
Section 299 CrPC, on perusal thereof it cannot be said that the
same has been filed without any basis or no case is made out
against the petitioners.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised so many
grounds on merits to show their innocence, but it is not
appropriate to minutely examine the material on record and
comment on merits of the case. However, the petitioners are at
liberty to raise all their grounds before the trial court at
appropriate stage, which are to be considered in accordance with
law.
11. Legal position expounded in the judgments cited by the
petitioners is not disputed at all. However, in none of the case the
criminal proceedings instituted upon a police report (challan) have
been culminated. Therefore, the judgments cited by the
petitioners do not help them.
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-4936/2019]
12. The prayer for conversion non bailable warrants into bailable
one is not tenable, because the accused-petitioners did not
cooperate in the investigation and they have been declared
proclaimed offenders and challan has been presented under
Section 299 CrPC against them after adopting due process of
issuing arrest warrants under investigation and proceedings under
Sections 82 and 83 CrPC might have been initiated. Thus, they are
not entitled to any indulgence in this regard.
13. In view of above, this court does not find any ground for
quashing the criminal proceedings. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J
Arn/37
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
