Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anita vs State And Anr on 29 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1177/2011
Anita Saini (Shah)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Charan
For Respondents : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, P.P.
Mr. D.S. Thind
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 27/09/2022
Pronounced on 29/09/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that
this Misc petition may kindly be allowed and the orders dated
23.6.2010 & 7.6.2011 passed by the learned courts below may
kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be
ordered to be discharged from the alleged offences.
Any other order, which may kindly be deem, fit and proper
may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Briefly put, the facts of this case, as narrated in the petition,
are that on 04.03.2009, a complaint came to be filed by the
complainant-private respondent, Gurmendra Singh, against Anita
Saini (the present petitioner), as well as against Lalit Kumar Saini
and Arvind Kumar before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri
Ganganagar for the offences under the Sections 406, 420 and
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 09:20:15 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1177/2011]
120B I.P.C. Thereafter, the learned trial court, vide the impugned
order dated 23.06.2010, took cognizance against the present
petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 IPC; the said order was
challenged by the petitioner by preferring a revision, which was
dismissed by the learned revisional court vide the impugned order
dated 07.06.2011.
3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, Arvind
Kumar, Lalit Kumar Saini and Anita Saini W/o Lalit Kumar Saini
were acquaintances, and that on the pretext of providing a work
visa to New Zealand, the three accused persons allegedly took
advances from the complainant, for the same, to the tune of
Rs.4,00,000/-, and subsequently, amount of Rs.45,000/-,
Rs.11,000/-, Rs.49,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.49,800/-, Rs.45,000/-
and Rs.49,990/-, in the year 2007, were also sent to the accused
persons. And that yet another sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in the year
2008, was collected from the complainant, with the promise that
the complainant would soon acquire a work visa for New Zealand.
But despite receiving the said sums of money, the complainant did
not receive the requisite work visa to travel to New Zealand. And
that, the accused persons collected the aforesaid sums of money,
totalling Rs.9,89,790/- on false pretexts, thereby duped the
complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below ought to be
quashed and set aside, on the ground that there is a lack of
sufficient evidence to point towards the culpability of the
petitioner, nor was the testimony of the complainant recorded
under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that there
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 09:20:15 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1177/2011]
is a delay in the filing of the complaint, for which no explanation
or justification was offered by the complainant.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the private respondent jointly opposed the
present petition, and submitted that the impugned orders have
been rightly passed by the learned Courts below, after taking into
due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the
present case, along with the evidences placed on the record, to
the extent necessary at the stage of cognizance.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that at the stage
of cognizance, what is required of the concerned Court is to
consider whether any prima facie any case, against the accused
concerned, is found to be made out or not. A detailed analysis and
appreciation of the evidence, including delay in lodging of the
complaint/FIR, are subject matter of trial.
7. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned orders would
reveal that the learned Courts below have rightly passed the said
orders, after finding a prima facie case against the accused for the
offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., owing to the facts and
circumstances of the case, as mentioned hereinabove.
8. This Court also finds that the learned courts below have duly
considered the case, and addressed the contentions made before
them, and such due consideration and appreciation as reflected in
the reasoned impugned orders passed by the learned Courts
below, owing to the stage of the case, do not merit any
interference by this Court.
(Downloaded on 29/09/2022 at 09:20:15 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1177/2011]
9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts
below, so as to warrant any interference therein.
10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
