Keshar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6447 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6274/2021

1. Keshar Singh S/o Sh. Pratap Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Rawna Rajput, R/o Inside Solanki Darwaja, House No. 101, Goswami Mohalla, Deogarh, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).

2. Smt. Shanta Kumari W/o Sh. Keshar Singh, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Rawna Rajput, R/o Inside Solanki Darwaja, House No. 101, Goswami Mohalla, Deogarh, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ranveer Singh Tanwar S/o Sh. Gangavishan Singh, B/c Rawna Rajput, R/o Ward No. 23, Asind, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
                               Mr. S.S. Sisodia
                               Mr. Rajendra Singh, Dy.S.P.,
                               Bheem, District Rajsamand in person.


                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                                    Order
04/05/2022

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred challenging the FIR

No.432/2021 registered against the petitioners for the offences

under Sections 306, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that

the FIR has been lodged vindictively and simply with a view to

harass the petitioners; the reason for lodging the FIR is essentially

a property dispute between the petitioners and the family of the

deceased.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6274/2021]

2. It was argued that if the facts of the FIR are taken into

consideration, the aggrieved person could, at the best, be the

husband of the deceased, whereas the FIR has been lodged by

one Ranveer Singh, who is the father of the deceased.

3. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court

rendered in the case of Ratna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. [2014 (1) WLN 182 (Raj.)] and argued that in absence of

any evidence about incitement, provocation or instigation, the

offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said

to have been made out, while also arguing that no cheating can

be said to have been done with the complainant.

4. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

during the investigation, the Investigation Officer has found a

suicide note, written by deceased (Jyoti) and highlighted that the

suicide note was sent for FSL and the report clearly suggests that

the writing on the suicide note is that of the deceased. He pointed

out that the said suicide note clearly points towards petitioner's

role in compelling the deceased to take such drastic step.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor also invited Court's attention

towards the statement given by the husband of the deceased,

which has corroborated the version not only of the deceased but

also supported the facts narrated in the FIR.

6. In support of his stand that dying declarations are to be

given due credence, learned Public Prosecutor relied upon

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Narayan

Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat and Anr. [(2019)

13 SCC 598] and submitted that in light of the suicide note, the

petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the offences alleged.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6274/2021]

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, particularly the suicide

note and statement of husband of the deceased, this Court is of

the view that a prima-facie case for trial of the offences alleged

against the petitioners is made out and the FIR in question cannot

be quashed.

8. So far as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Shah in the case

of Ratna Ram (supra) is concerned, in the opinion of this Court,

there are striking features in the present case, namely, the suicide

note and statement of the husband of the deceased, which clearly

distinguish the present case from the facts which were involved in

the case of Ratna Ram (supra).

9. Be that as it may. For the reasons noted hereinabove, this

Court does not find it to be a case warranting interference under

Section 482 of the Code.

10. The present miscellaneous petition is, therefore, dismissed.

11. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

12. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove

are prima-facie opinion of this Court to the extent necessary for

decision of the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR in

question. The same shall not be construed to be findings of this

Court about petitioners' guilt or commission of the offences

alleged.

13. Hence, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the

observations made hereinabove and record its finding on the basis

of oral or ocular evidence.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 11-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)