Rajasthan High Court
Sandeep Choudhary S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3834/2020
1. Sandeep Choudhary S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh
Choudhary, Aged About 52 Years, R/o H.no. 802, Royal
Cghs, Plot No. 23, Gurugram Haryana, Pin 122001.
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Rai Soni, Aged About 38
Years, R/o 906, Airport Apartment Sector 47, Gurugram
Haryana, Pin 122001
3. Prabhu Dayal S/o Shri Chandu Lal, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o Plot No. 375, Sect. No 27, Gurugram, Haryana.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Asmohd. S/o Shri Rasheed Khan, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Village Khaitwara, Tehsil Pahari Distt. Bharatpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Mohit Soni through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar, PP
Mr. Prabhajan Singh through VC
Mr. Sharad Purohit through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/01/2022
The instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred on
behalf of the accused-petitioners seeking quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings undertaken pursuant to FIR No. 13/2019
registered at Police Station Kaithwara, District Bharatpur including
the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur whereby the
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued
process in the form of warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3834/2020]
That order was assailed by preferring a revision petition but that
too was dismissed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,
No. 2, Deeg, District Bharatpur in Revision No. 10/20 vide order
dated 19.08.2020.
At the threshold, Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Mohit Soni, learned counsel submits that it was a
case of civil nature but endeavor has been made by the
complainant to give it a colour of criminal offence, however, after
conducting thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency
submitted a negative Final Report before the learned Judicial
Magistrate. Upon the protest being made by the complainant, the
learned Magistrate, without appreciating the correct and legal
aspects of the matter and without considering the grounds of
negative Final Report submitted by the police, has proceeded to
take cognizance of the offence and issued process in the form of
warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
Learned counsel submits that in view of the plethora of
judicial pronouncements made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
more particularly a judgment rendered in Indra Mohan
Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [(2007) 12 SCC 1], it is
observed that the learned Magistrate, at the first instance, ought
to have issued a summon or bailable warrant instead of issuance
of warrant of arrest.
Learned counsel further submits that both the Courts below
have lost sight of examining the legal aspect of this matter, more
particularly, the absence of ingredients which are essential to
constitute an offence under Section 420 & 120B IPC. He submits
that from the bare perusal of the report, the statement of the
prosecution witnesses and the orders passed by the Court below,
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3834/2020]
it would reveal that there was not even an iota of evidence to
show or suggest that the complainant was ever induced by the
petitioner to deliver any property which he did not do if had not
been induced by the petitioner. There is no material to show that
wrongful loss has occurred to the complainant or the petitioner
has gained something wrongfully. He thus, prayed that the orders
challenged as well as the entire proceedings may be quashed and
set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Sharad Purohit,
learned counsel for the complainant-respondent opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
Heard. Gone through the material made available by the
parties before this Court, more particularly the orders dated
20.02.2020 and 19.08.2020.
In the totality of facts and circumstances of this case,
instead of passing any order on merits, this Court deems it
appropriate to set aside the orders passed by the Courts below to
the extent it issued the warrant of arrest against the petitioners.
Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall appear
before the learned Trial Court on or before 25.02.2022 and shall
move regular bail application, the same shall be allowed and the
accused-petitioners shall be released on bail on the very same day
on the bails bonds and amount of surety to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court.
It is also deemed appropriate to give liberty to the
petitioners to raise all their objections/grounds/submissions before
the learned Trial Court at the stage of hearing on the question of
charge along with all documents upon which they place reliance.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3834/2020]
In the event, any application for discharge of the accused-
petitioners is made, learned Magistrate shall consider the
submissions as well as the documents, quality of which should be
impeccable in nature. The learned Magistrate after taking account
of the submissions made by the accused-petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor would pass an order strictly in
accordance with law and as per the mandate of Sections 239 &
240 Cr.P.C. by passing a reasoned speaking order.
Still, thereafter, if the grievance of the petitioners persist,
they would be at liberty to approach this Court again directly.
Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is disposed of.
The stay application also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
SAHIL SONI /21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
