Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dayala Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-832/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 832/2021
Dayala Ram S/o Sh. Mukhram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward
No. 16, Rawatsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Nanu Ram S/o Sh. Hazari Ram, R/o Ward No. 16,
Rawatsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. Devilal S/o Sh. Nanu Ram, R/o Ward No. 16, Rawatsar,
Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi with
Mr. Navneet Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
Mr. Rakesh Matoria
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/11/2022
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this criminal
revision petition may kindly be allowed and the judgment
dated 14.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh passed
in Criminal Revision CIS No.32/2016 titled as "Nanu Ram &
Anr. Vs. State & Anr." be quashed and set aside in the
interest of justice and restored the order dated 16.03.2016
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar.
Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deemed fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances
of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner"
(Downloaded on 25/11/2022 at 12:02:46 AM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-832/2021]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
complainant had submitted a complaint on 07.08.2014 before the
learned court below; after thorough investigation, upon the said
complaint having been forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to
the concerned police authorities, the FIR No.459/2014 was
registered, but the same culminated into filing of a negative final
report.
Learned counsel further submits that despite clear
statements of the witnesses, the investigating authority has
wrongly found the case to be disproved against the private
respondents. Learned counsel also submits that the cognizance
was rightly taken by the learned trial court vide its order dated
16.03.2016, which was based on the testimony of three
witnesses, whereas the revisional court vide the impugned order
dated 14.09.2021 has set aside the said order of cognizance.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the private respondents oppose the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that in
relation to the original FIR, there were three witnesses i.e. Bheru
Lal, Bhanwar Lal and Prem whereas none of them have deposed in
favour of the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
contents of the FIR are totally false and concocted on the face of
it, and therefore, the concerned police authorities had rightly
arrived at a conclusion that it deserves the negative final report.
Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties
and on a conjoint reading of the FIR and the statement of Bheru
Lal, who is a FIR witness, this Court however finds that on the
(Downloaded on 25/11/2022 at 12:02:47 AM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-832/2021]
face of it, no offence is made out, apart from the fact that the set
of the witnesses being sought to be changed in the court is not a
correct remedy. A negative final report by the police is also
perused and the same is satisfactory. Thus, the learned revisional
court has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call
for any interference.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
119-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
