Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajnikant vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 374/2019
Rajnikant S/o Champa Lal, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste
Trivedi (Brahmin), R/o D-136 A, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Choudhary , Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent : Mr. Virkam Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 14/09/2022
Pronounced on 19/09/2022
1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision
Petition under Section 397/201 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed. The
order passed by Learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption
Act Cases, Jodhpur dated 19.01.2019, framing the charges for
offence punishable u/s 120-B I.P.C. may kindly be quashed and set
aside, accused petition may kindly be discharged for offence
punishable under section 120-B I.P.C.
Any other relief which may be considered in favour of the
petitioner may kindly ordered to be issue."
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. J.S.
Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pradeep
Choudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that a
complaint, bearing No. 198/05, was made before the Anti
(Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:45:13 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-374/2019]
Corruption Department, Jodhpur wherein it was alleged that at
certain Khasras, totalling about 46 Khasras, under 'Nagar Nikas
Nyaas' (UIT) were accorded for the 'Shyam Nagar Yojana' scheme.
And that, the said lands on 03.03.1978 were set apart for the said
scheme by District Collector, Jodhpur. In pursuance thereof,
certain meetings were conducted, whereby it was decided that
those persons who have 'gair khatedaari' on the said lands, if
surrender their lands to the UIT, they shall be issued pattas on
deposition of a fixed amount towards improvement charges, while
reducing 20-25% of the said lands.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for
the same offences, two F.I.R.s came to be filed, one bearing No.
185/2005 dated 02.06.2005 at Police Station, Shastri Nagar,
Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B
I.P.C. and the other being F.I.R. No. 312/2009 dated 11.12.2009
at Police Station, A.C.B. Jaipur for the offences under Sections
420, 467, 120-B and Section 13 (1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and investigated by two agencies. And that,
two criminal cases cannot be instituted against the same accused
in two different criminal Courts, pertaining to the same subject
matter.
3.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner
was a bonafide purchaser of the land, which were thereafter sold
out to certain persons, and thus, in respect of the same, there was
no occasion for the present petitioner to hatch any criminal
conspiracy, while being in connivance with the accused persons.
Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that it is clear from the
(Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:45:13 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-374/2019]
record that the petitioner is being entangled in the present case,
for mistake, if any, committed by the concerned government
officials or khatedar one Roop Ram, and thus, when the petitioner
has no direct connection with the alleged crime and is an innocent
person, the impugned order passed by the learned court below
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that in fact, both
F.I.R.s were lodged in relation to the same subject matter, and
have resulted in two simultaneous criminal prosecutions against
the accused petitioner herein.
5. Heard learned counsel for the both parties and perused the
record of the case.
6. At the outset, this Court notes that two F.I.R.s have been
instituted against the accused herein on the same factual matrix
before two different investigating agencies, and that on the basis
of the same, two criminal cases were instituted before two
different criminal Courts, which attracts double jeopardy.
7. Thus, without delving much into the merits of the case and
making any observation thereof, this Court, is prima facie satisfied
that the present petitioner has been subjected to two criminal
proceedings, investigated into by two different agencies, in
respect of the same subject matter, and thus, the same clearly
amounts to double jeopardy, and violative of the right enshrined
under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India, caused to the
present petitioner, which is contrary to law.
(Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:45:13 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-374/2019]
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned court
below, qua the present petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The
petitioner is discharged of the offence with which he has been
charged vide the impugned order. All pending applications stand
disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
