Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lrs Of Vagaram vs State And Ors on 8 March, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

                                       (1 of 5)                  [CRLA-1832/2017]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1832/2017

Lrs Of Vagaram
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State And Ors
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Paramveer Singh
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. N.S. Bhati, P.P.
                               Mr. Shambhoo Singh

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

08/03/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Pali in F.R. No.25/2014, whereby

the protest petition filed by complainant (deceased Vagaram) -

whose legal representatives are the present appellants - was

dismissed, and the negative final report submitted by the police

was accepted.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the private

respondents illegally entered the property of the appellants, by

breaking the wall of their residential house with the intention to

(2 of 5) [CRLA-1832/2017]

dispossess them, and in doing so, also gave beating to the

appellants and their family with sticks, and also outraged the

modesty of the wife of Late Vagaram (complainant), and despite

an F.I.R. having been registered for the offences under the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the concerned Police authorities filed

a negative Final Report, stating absence of any injury report and

that there were no witnesses, except the complainant himself. And

that, despite the complainant (Vagaram) having passed away, his

legal representatives (the present appellants) being involved in

the tussle that ensued, are aggrieved by the impugned order

passed by the learned court below.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his

submissions, places reliance on the following case laws:-

4.1 Radhey Shyam Vs. Kunj Behari & Ors. AIR 1990 SC

121 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held asunder: -

"8. On a consideration of the matter, we find the grievance of the appellants to be well-founded. The High Court has failed to give due consideration to the fact that the investigation of the case had been handed over to the C.I.D. because of unsatisfactory investigation by the authorities of Todabhim Police Station. As such the C.I.D. was under an obligation to examine once again the witnesses already examined and to examine other persons whom the original investigating agency ought to have examined but had failed to examine. In the very nature of things, a fuller and effective investigation by the C.I.D. is bound to bring out several materials not discovered or recorded by the first investigating agency. As to how much acceptance has to be given to the investigation done by the C.I.D. and the statements of witnesses recorded by its officers is a matter which can be determined only after the trial is held and the witnesses and the investigating officer adduce their evidence on oath. As regards the non-mention of the

(3 of 5) [CRLA-1832/2017]

date of recording of the statement of Sravan Lal, a finding can be rendered on the omission only after the C.I.D. offices who recorded the statement is given opportunity to explain the reason for the omission. In so far as the High Court's view that "in the interest of justice, it is the duty of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to go into the merits of the evidence and appreciate correctly the documents and the statements filed by the police", we may only refer to Mohd. Akbar Dar and Ors. v.

State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. MANU/SC/0182/1981 : 1981 Suppl. SCC 80 where it has been pointed out that at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by court is not required."

4.2 Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala & Ors.

1978 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held asunder: -

"In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalai and Ors. MANU/SC/0173/1976 : [1976] Supp. S.C.R. 123 this Court while laying down the categories of the cases in which an order of a Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed observed :

It is well settled by a long catena of decisions of this Court that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case nor can the High Court go into this matter in its revisional jurisdiction which is a very limited one."

4.3 Shri Ram vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. C.W.P. No.

66/2013 (Raj. HC) wherein the Hon;ble Single Bench of this

Court held asunder:-

"In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has demarcated the jurisdiction of the trial Court while taking cognizance of the offence. The Apex Court has opined that cognizance is always taken of an offence and not of the offender. Further, while taking cognizance, the learned trial Court is not

(4 of 5) [CRLA-1832/2017]

permitted to meticulously examine the evidence collected by the investigating agency. Even if there were contradictions in the evidence so collected, the learned trial Court cannot look into these contradictions. The scope and ambit of taking cognizance is limited only to whether seeing prima facie the offence is made out i.e. whether the ingredients of the offence exist or not. The evidence which may be in favour of the accused, and the facts which may be marshalled out as part of his defence during full fledged trial, such evidence and facts cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance. For, at the initial stage of taking cognizance, the trial Court is only concerned with the existence of a prima facie case with regard to the commission of the offence. The legal position so stated above, has bee noted by the learned Judge also in the impugned order dated 12.10.2012.

The bare perusal of the order dated 13.12.2011, clear reveals that the learned trial Court had considered the contradictions between the statements of eye-witnesses, and the statement of Umraomal Meena and Jitendra Kumar. By doing so, the learned trial Court obviously overstepped its jurisdiction. Therefore, the leaned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the trial Court could not have done so."

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

private respondents however, while opposing the aforesaid

submissions made on behalf of the appellants submit that the

impugned order passed by the learned court below is a well

reasoned and speaking order.

6. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar.

7. This Court finds that the learned court below had passed the

impugned order, while making some logical and well reasoned

observations i.e. the police after conducting the investigation,

found that the deceased Vagaram (complainant) had four brothers

and that his family was in possession of the land in question,