Suresh Panwar S/O Late Shri M.L. ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2554 Raj/2

       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

(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.

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)