Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Lal @ R.L. Jhanwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6962/2022
1. Ram Lal @ R.L. Jhanwar S/o Hari Kishan Jhanwar, Age 51
Years, R/o Bhadla Chowk, Katla Chowk, Tehsil Nokha,
Bikaner.
2. Shiv Jhanwar @ Prem Jhanwar S/o Hari Kishan Jhanwar,
Age 43 Years, R/o Bhadla Chowk, Katla Chowk, Tehsil
Nokha, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Vishnu Dutt S/o Krishan Lal, Ex. C.I. P.S. Gangashahar R/
o C-155 Kanta Kathuria Colony, Bikaner (Died)
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Virendra Acharya with
Mr. Narayan Ram Yadav
For Respondents : Mr. M.S. Bhati, P.P.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 01/12/2022
Pronounced on 02/12/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and
order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the Addl. Session Judge No
6, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition No 32/2022 CIS No
103/2022 "Ram Lal & Anr Vs State of Rajasthan" and the
order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate No 1, Bikaner in Criminal Original Case No
64/2018 CIS No 1953/2017 "State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Lal &
Ors." may kindly be quashed and set aside."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioners are that the private respondent filed a
written complaint, dated 09.11.2016 through registered post and
(Downloaded on 03/12/2022 at 12:00:15 AM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6962/2022]
the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner
to Police Station, Ganga Shehar, Bikaner. It was averred therein
that on 16.08.2016, certain investigation was conducted by the
S.H.O Darja Ram, P.S. Nokha at the house of petitioner no.2 and
that it was found that illegal gambling and betting activity was
being undertaken by him; upon which an investigation report
came to be submitted; stating therein that during investigation,
call details of a mobile number were received whereupon it was
found that through the said number, betting of crores of rupees on
cricket matches were taking place. A laptop and certain papers
were also recovered on the spot, which revealed that betting
related to the Uttarakhand Cricket Championship Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohiya Trophy was being done. The investigation revealed the said
activities were organized by petitioner no.2, in which petitioner
no.1 was also involved. Forged sim cards were also recovered
from the spot.
2.1 In the aforesaid factual backdrop, an F.I.R., bearing no.
249/2016, came to be registered against the present petitioners
and certain other persons for the offences under Sections
419,420, 467, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 17 and 18 of the
Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 and 3/4 of the Rajasthan Public
Gambling Ordinance, 1949. Thereupon, a charge-sheet came to be
filed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections
420, 120-B IPC and 3/4 Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance,
1949. Thereafter, the learned Court below, vide order dated
06.04.2022, proceeded to frame charges against the present
petitioner for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the
(Downloaded on 03/12/2022 at 12:00:15 AM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6962/2022]
learned Sessions Court, which came to dismissed vide order dated
31.08.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of the law as
prima facie no offences for the charges levelled against the
present petitioners are made out on a bare perusal of the
impugned F.I.R. and therefore ought to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rekha Jain v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (Criminal
Appeal No. 749/2022) decided on 10.05.2022.and the
judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in
the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Rajastan (S.B. Criminal
Misc(Pet.) No. 3037/2022) decided on 11.10.2022.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
petition and submitted that at the stage of framing of charges,
what is required to be seen, is whether a prima facie case is made
out against the accused; and that in the present factual matrix,
the impugned order of the learned Trial Court framing charges
against the present petitioners has been rightly passed after
looking into the investigation conducted by the concerned
investigation agency. And that the same has been rightly affirmed
by the learned revisional Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the
record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
7. This Court observes that at the stage of framing of charge,
the learned Trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous
appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was
(Downloaded on 03/12/2022 at 12:00:15 AM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6962/2022]
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in
Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680
and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal
and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290, however, a perusal of the
impugned F.I.R. would reveal that a prima facie case is not made
out against the present petitoners with regard to the offence
under Section 420 IPC, as there is nothing on the record to
suggest dishonest inducement or cheating; ingredients required to
constitute the offence under the said Section.
8. This Court further draws strength, in such regard is drawn
from the cases, of Rekha Jain (supra) and Sanjay Kumar
(supra), as cited on behalf of the petitioners. However, it is
further observed that the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra)
otherwise stands on a different footing, as in the present case, the
impugned F.I.R. with respect to the offences under the Rajasthan
Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 was lodged at the instance of
the complainant-private respondent, and not by a police authority.
9. As an upshot of the above discussion, the impugned orders
are quashed and set aside only to the extent of framing of charges
for the offence under Section 420 IPC, against the present
petitioners; while affirming the impugned orders with respect to
the other charges framed against them, therein.
10. Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed to the
extent as indicated above. All pending applications stand disposed
of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
