Rajasthan High Court
Heera Lal S/O Mangi Lal @ Manguram vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1890/2020
1. Heera Lal S/o Mangi Lal @ Manguram, R/o Bhasinghpura,
Ps Phulera, At Present R/o Maliyawas, Ps Phulera Distt.
Jaipur.
2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Mangi Lal @ Manguram, R/o
Bhasinghpura, Ps Phulera, At Present R/o Anu Bihar
Colony, Jobner Road, Phulera, Ps Phulera, Distt. Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Jainarayan, R/o Kapdiyawas Khurd, Ps
Jobner, Distt. Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Senior
Counsel with Mr. Anurag Pareek, Mr.
Aniket Sharma, Mr. Tanay Jain & Mr.
Saurabh Pratap Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP
None present for respondent No.2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 13.10.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 20.10.2022
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR
No.104/2013 registered at Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur
for the offence under Sections 498-A, 341, 323 and 452 IPC and
also for quashing the order dated 09.01.2014 passed by learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate Sambhar Lake,
District Jaipur for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1890/2020]
offence under Section 306 IPC and the order dated 20.02.2020
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1,
Sambharlake, District Jaipur for framing of charge against the
petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent
No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners. After investigation,
Investigating Officer had filed the charge-sheet under Section 306
IPC against the petitioners. Trial court vide order dated
09.01.2014 wrongly took the cognizance against the petitioners
under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners also
submits that case of the petitioners was committed before the
Court of Sessions and Court of Sessions vide order dated
20.02.2020 wrongly ordered for framing of charge against the
petitioners under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also submits that petitioners were residing separately
from the deceased and her husband. Husband of deceased as well
as complainant-Bhanwar Lal have filed an affidavits before the trial
court in which they had clearly stated that distribution of land was
done on 02.09.2010. They had no dispute and complainant also
stated that he had wrongly lodged an FIR against the petitioners.
Petitioners are not responsible for suicide of her sister. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is no evidence
that petitioners had instigated the deceased for committing
suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that
statements of complainant and husband of deceased were
recorded by the trial court in which they had denied any
instigation by the petitioners. So, order of the trial court for taking
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1890/2020]
cognizance as well as order of learned Sessions Court for framing
of charge be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
following judgments: (1) S. S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan & Anr. reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190; (2) State of
Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 SC
1489; (3) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998; (4) Geo
Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in AIR 2021
SC 4764; (5) M. Mohan Vs. The State represented by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in AIR 2011 SC
1238; (6) Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 99
Cr.LR (SC) 141; (7) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat
& Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1291/2008 & CRLMP
NO.12749/2008 decided on 17.08.2010; (8) Rajesh Vs.
State of Haryana reported in AIR 2019 SC 478; (9) Manish
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Revision
Petition No.351/1993 decided on 28.02.1994 and (10)
Gurucharan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab in Criminal
Appeal No.40/2011 decided on 01.10.2020.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted
that suicide note was recovered during investigation in which
deceased clearly stated that petitioners had tortured her, so,
deceased had committed suicide. Learned Public Prosecutor also
submitted that the affidavits filed by the complainant and husband
of the deceased cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1890/2020]
Petitioners have liberty to take all the averments at the time of
trial. So, petition be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that affidavits of the complainant
and husband of the deceased were prepared after incident.
Complainant in its complaint clearly stated that petitioners had
tortured the deceased, so, she had committed suicide and suicide
note was also recovered during investigation. So, in my considered
opinion, orders of the trial court as well as revisional court do not
suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, petition filed by the
petitioners being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands
dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /87
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
