Rajasthan High Court
Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 November, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1418/2019
1. Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramratan Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Sawai Bhoj Nagar, Near Milk Dairy, Ward
No.35, Agra Road, District Dausa.
2. Ramratan Sharma S/o Shri Anandi Lal Sharma, R/o Ganga
Vihar Colony, Somnath Nagar, Ward No.34, Agra Road, District
Dausa.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2. Kailash Chand Meena S/o Shri Mahadev Prasad Meena Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Khan Bhankri, District Dausa, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobit Tiwari
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
09/11/2021
1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition for quashing of
FIR No. 09/2019 registered at police station Sadar Dausa, District
Dausa.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the
allegation in the FIR is of hurling caste based abuses. It is also
contended that petitioners have produced the CCTV Footage of the
place where the alleged incident took place. It is argued there was
no hurling of caste based abuses and a false case has been
registered. It is further contended that the Deputy Superintendent
of Police who had conducted the investigation had come to the
conclusion that offence is not made out, however, subsequently,
police went upon implicating the present petitioners.
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1423/2019]
3. Counsel for the State and complainant have opposed the
Misc. petition. It is contended that FIR discloses commission of
cognizable offence and it scuttle the investigation. Apex Court in
the case of "Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs The State Of
Gujarat: (2018) 3 SCC 106" has held that High Court should
not act like an investigating agency and High Court can not
appreciate the evidence nor can draw its own inferences from the
contents of the F.I.R. It is the job of the investigating authority at
such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the
questions once the charge sheet is filed. Since, F.I.R. prima facie
discloses the commission of cognizable offence, no ground is made
out for quashing of F.I.R.
4. Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on M/s
Medohl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Biological E. Ltd,
(2000 AIR (SC) 1869).
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Since petitioners have produced a CD of the incident, it is
imperative of the investigating Officer to consider the CD
produced, come to the conclusion as to whether the incident
alleged is made out or not, hence, this Court is not inclined to
entertain this misc. petition.
7. Petitioner is free to submit his representation alongwith CD
to the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer shall
consider the same before arriving at any conclusion with regard to
the alleged offence.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
NIKHIL KR. YADAV /4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
