Mukesh Son Of Ramlal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3417 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6097/2021

Mukesh Son Of Ramlal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village
Molakiya, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.       Shankar Lal Son Of Ramswaroop, Aged About 21 Years,
         Resident Of Molakiya, Police Station Kekari, District
         Ajmer. (Raj).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vijendra Yadav,
                                Dr. Mahesh Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.
                                Mr. Kailash Chand Kataria

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

Order Reserved on : 26/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022

1. By way of this this criminal miscellaneous petition, petitioner

prays to quash FIR No.579/2021 registered at Police Station

Kekari, District Ajmer for the offence punishable under Sections

323, 341, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(S), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of SC &

ST (POA) Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is a practicing advocate and presently practicing at Kekri, District

Ajmer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

complainant lodged the present FIR against the petitioner on the

false and fabricated facts. Petitioner is not involved in the alleged

offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6097/2021]

petitioner had also lodged an FIR No.580/2021 registered at same

police station against the complainant under Section 323, 341,

427, 379 IPC in which petitioner clearly mentioned that when he

was on the way of his home from Court, complainant and other

persons stopped him and attacked suddenly. They also broke

glasses of his car. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that petitioner is an advocate against the complainant in

a matter. So, due to enmity, present FIR was lodged. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that a bare reading of the

FIR, offences of SC & ST (POA) Act is not made out against the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

complainant has criminal background. After this incident, one

Manju Devi has lodged in FIR against the complainant and other

persons for misbehaving and beating her and her family members.

So, the present FIR is clearly misuse of proceedings. So, the

present FIR, be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments

passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of

Uttrakhand & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020 (Arising

out of SLP (Criminal) No.3585 of 2020) and Ramawatar Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh; Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation,

Investigating Officer has found proved the offence under Sections

341, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(Va), of SC & ST

(POA) Act. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that

investigation was done in this matter twice. First as well as second

Investigating Officer found proved the offences against the

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6097/2021]

petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that

petitioner has lodged the FIR against the complainant after

thought. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that

during investigation, statements of Manish Gurjar and Inderdev

Meena were recorded by Investigating Officer in which they

clearly stated that petitioner had beaten the complainant and

defamed him by caste based allegations. So, petition filed by the

petitioner be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the complainant.

6. After investigation, Investigating Officer has found proved

the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)

(R)(S), 3(2)(Va), of SC & ST (POA) Act against the petitioner.

Investigating Officer stated in factual report that statements of

witnesses Manish Gurjar, Inderdev Meena and Lalaram Jat were

recorded during investigation. They clearly stated that petitioner

had beaten the complainant and abused him by way of caste

based allegations.

7. In my considered opinion, there is no ground to quash the

FIR. So, petition filed by the petitioner, being devoid of merits, is

liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands

dismissed.

9. Pending application/s, if any, stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/107

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)