Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Kumar vs State And Anr on 20 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1023/2016
Vijay Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Yogita Mohnani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.
Mr. N.K. Rastogi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 12/07/2022
Pronouncned on 20/07/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court will be
pleased to send for the records of the courts below, peruse the
same & after perusal set aside the order of the cognizance or pass
any other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper."
2. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the
order, dated 14.3.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Sessiosn
Judge, Churu, in Criminal Revision Case No. 47/2014 (38/2014)
and against the orders dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Churu, taking
cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C. against the revisionist-petitioner, Vijay Kumar, in
Criminal Case 50/2014, Krishnajit Vs. Vijay Kumar.
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 09:10:18 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMP-1023/2016]
3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned Court for the revisionist-petitioner are that the
revisionist-petitioner and the private respondent, Krishnajit, are
brothers, who reside at Hisar, Haryana and that on 21.08.2013,
the private respondent filed a written report at Police Station,
Churu against the petitioner Vijay Kumar, District Transport
Officer, Churu and his clerk Anoop Swami, and other persons, all
residents of Hisar; stating therein that he had purchased a
Honda Activa Scooter at Hisar, on 19.08.2009, the bill for which
was collected by the revisionist-petitioner in the name of the
private respondent and that he also took the delivery of the said
scooter as the purchase money was paid by him, and it was his
mobile number submitted for the said process and his sign on
the purchase bill of the said vehicle. And that, the police
registered a case against the revisionist-petitioner for the
offences as above mentioned, on the basis of the said report,
and upon investigation, filed a negative report and started
separate proceedings under Section 182/211 I.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that
the learned Magistrate passed no orders on the said negative
report, filed by the police, and recorded the statement of the
private respondent no. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and took
cognizance against the revisionist-petitioner for the above
mentioned offences.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further
submits that the Honda Activa Scooter in question was
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 09:10:18 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1023/2016]
purchased by him, that he was the one who paid the money for
it and the delivery of the said vehicle was also taken by him.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner also submits
that the registration process for the said vehicle was done in
accordance with the law at the RTO, Churu as was also found by
the concerned police authorities.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further
submits that a suit for partition has been filed between the
private respondent and the revisionist-petitioner, their brother,
their mother, and that the revisionist-petitioner is being
pressurized to compromise, and that the F.I.R. against him
herein, is a counter blast case of the private respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner placed
reliance on the following cases; T.T. Antony Vs. State of
Kerala 2011 Cri.L.J. 3329 (SC), The State of Punjab Vs.
Brij Lal Palta 1969 CAR 137 (SC), Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr. 2013 Cri.L.J 3900 (SC) Amar
Singh Vs. Drugendra Kumar Mishra 2016 Cri.L.J. 1342
(Uttarakhand High Court).
9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
submissions made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner and
submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the
impugned order taking cognizance against the revisionist-
petitioner for the offences under the aforementioned sections,
looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present
case, coupled with the evidences placed on the record before it.
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 09:10:18 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1023/2016]
10. This Court observes that the learned Court below vide the
impugned order dated 14.03.2016, in dealing with the order,
dated 12.02.2014, taking cognizance against the revisionist-
petitioner herein has already dealt with the submissions made
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist-
petitioner. And in doing so, the learned Court below has passed
a detailed, speaking and well reasoned order, which after
looking to the overall facts and circumstances and the evidences
placed on the record before it, recorded the finding that looking
to the stage, being that where cognizance has been taken
against the revisionist-petitioner, of the case it would be
inappropriate and illegal to interfere in the same.
11. This Court further observes, looking to the order, dated
12.02.2014, although it may not explicitly state that the
negative final report submitted by the concerned police
authorities has been rejected, the mere fact that the learned
Court below proceeded against the accused revisionist-petitioner
herein, makes it clear that the negative final report was not
accepted by the learned Court below. Furthermore, at the stage
of taking cognizance the learned Court below has rightly
rejected the protest petitions filed by the co-accused, who are
on a similar footing as the accused revisionist-petitioner herein.
12. This Court also observes that the learned Court below, in
dismissing the revision petition filed before it by the revisionist-
petitioner herein against the order dated 12.02.2014, found that
suspicion against the accused rightly exists and the question on
(Downloaded on 20/07/2022 at 09:10:18 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-1023/2016]
whether the signatures on the concerned documents were
forged.
13. The precedent case laws cited by the learned counsel for
the revisionist-petitioner do not render any assistance to this
case.
14. This Court, therefore observes that the learned Court
below rightly upheld the order impugned therein, upon finding
that it did not suffer from any legal infirmity. And therefore, no
cause of interference of this Court, at this stage, is made out.
15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the revision petition
fails, and is hereby, dismissed. Accordingly, all pending
applications, if any, are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
100-Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
