Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Bansal vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4754/2022
Santosh Bansal W/o Sh. Ganesh Raj Bansal, Aged About 50
Years, I-273 Civil Lines Hanumangarh Junction Dist.
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. The Municipal Board Hanumangarh, Through Its Executive
Officer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
01/11/2022
1. By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged
the FIR No.381/2010 of ACB CPS Jaipur, Out Post - Hanumangarh
for the offence under sections 13(1)(D) & 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and sections 467, 468, 471, 477 A & 120 B of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the FIR in question could not have been registered against the
petitioner, particularly when no proceedings for cancellation of the
strip of land in question have been taken by the State.
3. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment dated 06.09.2017, passed by a coordinate Bench of this
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4754/2022]
Court in a bunch of matters led by S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.564/2012 : Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan.
4. Before adverting to the submissions made by Mr. Purohit, it
is pertinent to note that the petitioner had very recently filed
another misc. petition (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4060/2022)
albeit challenging the order dated 30.03.2022, whereby the trial
Court had issued direction for further investigation. The said
petition was dismissed and the order dated 30.03.2022, has been
upheld.
5. The petitioner has yet again approached this Court with a
challenge to the very registration of the FIR, which was registered
way back in the year 2010.
6. In response to Court's observation regarding maintainability
of the present petition, Mr. Purohit vehemently argued that the
occasion for challenging the FIR had not arisen to the petitioner as
the Investigating Officer had proposed a negative final report in
relation to the impugned FIR and the cause of action to challenge
the same has accrued only after the order dated 30.03.2022,
when the trial Court issued direction for further investigation.
7. In the opinion of this Court, it is too late in the day to lay
challenge to such FIR, particularly when the petitioner had this
option available to challenge the same when he had preferred
earlier misc. petition (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4060/2022).
8. It is to be noted that the petitioner had earlier also filed a
petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2881/2011, when
the FIR was registered against the petitioner in the year 2010.
The same was however withdrawn in wake of the fact that the
Investigating Officer had furnished a negative final report.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4754/2022]
9. In the opinion of this Court, the argument advanced by Mr.
Purohit is unsustainable in the eye of law. If the petitioner felt
aggrieved of the registration of the FIR, he ought to have
challenged the FIR at the very outset or at least while challenging
the order dated 30.03.2022.
10. The present petition is an attempt to stall the proceedings,
which have now been undertaken by the Investigating Officer
pursuant to the order for further investigation.
11. Needless to observe that the investigation is underway and
stopping such investigation, at such belated stage, would be
abuse of process of law.
12. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under section
482 of the Code.
13. The misc. petition, therefore, fails.
14. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
159-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
