Ramratan Biyani S/O Sh. Bhagwan ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6870 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8274/2022

1.     Ramratan Biyani S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das Biyani, R/o Flat
       No. C-102, C- Block, Ram Krishna Apartment, B-2
       Byepass, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
2.     Smt. Deepa Biyani W/o Sh. Ramratan Biyani, R/o Flat No.
       C-102, C- Block, Ram Krishna Apartment, B-2 Byepass,
       Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3.     Bhumi Maheshwari D/o Sh. Ramratan Biyani, R/o Flat No.
       C-102, C- Block, Ram Krishna Apartment, B-2 Byepass,
       Mansarovar, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2.     Parmanand Bharadwaj S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Bharadwaj, R/o
       119/348, Agrawal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
3.     Vikas Bharadwaj S/o Sh. Parmanand Bharadwaj, R/o Flat
       No. C-103, C- Block, Ram Krishna Apartment, B-2
       Byepass, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia, Mr. Jitendra Vijay, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Adv.

Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

21/10/2022

This petition is for quashing of FIR No. 282/2022 registered

at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur (South) for offences under

Section 420, 406 & 120-B IPC.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-8274/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for same

cause respondent No. 3-Vikas Bhardwaj has brought a complaint

case, a copy of the same is at annexure-2.

In the complaint case, inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was

going on and during pendency of the complaint case, respondent

No. 2 who is father of respondent No. 3 lodged the impugned FIR

for the same cause, therefore, the impugned FIR is fit to be

quashed on the ground of being second FIR of the same cause.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of

Kerala & Ors. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181.

Section 210 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.

(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject- matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.

(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.

(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code."

Evidently, this matter is covered by Section 210 Cr.P.C. and

the petitioners would be at liberty to move to the Magistrate

where complaint case is pending for stay of the proceedings due

to pendency of investigation in the FIR for the same cause.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-8274/2022]

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed

of as devoid of any merit.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

ANIL SHARMA /40

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)