Hansraj vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10660 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3878/2022

Hansraj S/o Amraram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Dhdiba Near Bus Stand Ward No. 15 Kasba Bidsar Dist. Churu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan.

2. Shyam Sundar Prajapat S/o Jugraj Prajapat, R/o Ward No. 23 Naya Bas Sujangarh Dist. Churu.

3. Shankar Lal Soni S/o Dharmchand Soni, R/o Chordiya Road Bidasar Tehsil Bidasar Dist. Churu.

4. Kadel Finance Company, Bidasar Through Proprietor Shakarlal Soni S/o Dharmchand Soni R/o Chordiya Road Bidasar Tehsil Bidasar Dist. Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

18/08/2022

1. Instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),

lays challenge to the order dated 21.04.2022, passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter

referred to as "the Revisional Court"), whereby the order dated

11.11.2021, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as

"the trial Court") has been affirmed.

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3878/2022]

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the

petitioner instituted a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure on 09.09.2016.

3. The trial Court on 11.11.2021 decided to record the

statement of the petitioner and conduct inquiry under Section

200-202 of the Code.

4. Being aggrieved of such decision of the learned trial Court,

the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 397 of

the Code, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.07/2022.

5. The Revisional Court per viam its order dated 21.04.2022

dealt with the petitioner's contention and upheld the order

impugned passed by the learned trial Court vide its detailed order,

inter-alia, observing that the matter and the facts in the alleged

complaint are disputed and the same need preliminary

adjudication of the trial Court.

6. According to the petitioner, instead of examining him (the

complainant) in exercise of power under Section 200-202 of the

Code, the learned trial Court should have referred the matter to

the police for investigation.

7. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

learned Court below has erred in not sending the matter to the

police for investigation and instead thereof, conducting

examination under Section 200-202 of the Code.

8. In support of his argument aforesaid, learned counsel drew

the attention of the Court towards the complaint and submitted

that a prima-facie offence is made out and thus, the trial Court

was required to register a case and direct the police to investigate.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 05.08.2022, passed by

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3878/2022]

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1184/2022

(arising out of SLP(Crl) No.1674 of 2022) : XYZ Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh & Ors., particularly, para No.24 thereof.

10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. On perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioner, this Court

finds that a horde of assertions have been made by the

complainant including allegations of withholding the cheques given

by the petitioner and using the same as a security for the

guarantee, purportedly given to one Shyam Sunder Soni.

12. That apart, the complaint has been filed on 08.11.2021 in

relation to a cheque, which admittedly got dishonoured and the

petitioner has received the summons from the trial Court on

01.11.2017 vide which the petitioner is being prosecuted under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

13. According to this Court, the trial Court was justified in

conducting examination under Section 200-202 of the Code

instead of directly registering a case and sending the matter for

investigation, as a host of interlaced facts are involved. In

absence of clarity on facts sending the matter to the police for

investigation would not have been proper course.

14. Section 156(3) of the Code uses expresses 'may' and confers

discretionary power to the Court to send the complaint to police

for investigation. Hence, if the trial Court has exercised its

discretion, which in the present factual backdrop appears to be

correct exercise of discretion, this Court does not deem it

appropriate to interfere.

15. So far as judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in XYZ vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.(supra) is concerned, para 24

thereof clearly postulates that it is the discretion of the trial Court

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3878/2022]

to register the case or to conduct inquiry under Section 200-202

of the Code. Hence, it hardly supports petitioners' contention.

16. The misc. petition, therefore, fails.

17. Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 118-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)