Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Ishwar Dayal S/O Shri Chand B/C ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6073 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6268/2019

Central Bureau Of Investigation, Special Crime-Iii, 3Rd Floor,
Right Wing, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Through Its
Authorized Officer.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Ishwar Dayal S/o Shri Chand B/c Brahman, R/o Village
         Sikrori, Tehsil Kumhar, District Bharatpur.
                                              ------Complainant-respondent

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. B.S. Chhaba with
                                 Mr. Vijay Singh for CBI
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
                                 Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
                                 Mr. T.L. Pandey

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

Order Reserved on :: 7.9.2022 Order Pronounced on :: 9.9.2022

The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing the impugned order dt. 14.8.2019 passed by Additional

District and Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case

No.05/2019 (CIS No.152/2018) titled as State Vs. Darab Singh &

ors. by which an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165

of the Evidence Act filed by the complainant has been allowed

partially.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court

vide order dt. 14.8.2019 wrongly allowed the application filed by

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6268/2019]

the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that FIR No.425/2012 lodged at Police Station Kumher, District

Bharatpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

during investigation, some accused were arrested. Smt. Chanda

Devi has filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.223/2013 in which

investigation was transferred to CBI. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that local police also permitted to file

charge sheet against arrested person because period of 90 days

about to complete against them vide order dt. 4.3.2013. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer of investigation to

CBI was challenged before the Apex Court by way of SLP and the

said SLP was dismissed on 29.11.2013. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that after investigation, CBI filed the charge

sheet on 22.12.2013. After that, for clarification application filed

by Smt. Chanda Devi for conducting of the trial. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that Co-ordinate Bench of this court

had clarified that trial should be conducted as per the charge

sheet filed by the CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that said order was also challenged by complainant- Ishwar Dayal

before the Apex Court but said SLP was dismissed. So, conducting

of trial on charge sheet filed by the CBI attained the finality.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that S.B. Criminal

Writ filed by Shyam Sunder in which Co-ordinate Bench of this

court vide order dt. 29.1.2018 disposed of the petition and

observed that trial court is bound by the order of the Co-ordinate

Bench of this court dt.20.4.2015. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that it is crystal clear that trial should be

conducted as per the charge sheet filed by the CBI. So, trial court

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6268/2019]

wrongly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 u/s

311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act for insertion

the name of 31 witnesses in the CBI charge sheet. So, order of

the trial court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State of

Bihar reported in 2010 (3) CJ (Cri.)(SC).

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that CBI had not investigated the matter properly. CBI

had left the important injured witnesses. So, trial court rightly

order to add the name of 18 witnesses in the charge sheet of the

CBI. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that

trial court had power to call any witness which is necessary for

just decision of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1

submits that out of 18 witnesses, statements of 14 witnesses were

recorded by the trial court only 4 witnesses are left. So, petition

filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent

No.1.

It is an admitted position that Co-ordinate Bench of this

court had ordered to conduct the trial as per the charge sheet filed

by CBI but trial court vide order dt.14.8.2019 clearly stated that

CBI had left the important witnesses so trial court exercised its

discretionary power in allowing the application filed by the

respondent No.1 u/s 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 165 of the

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6268/2019]

Evidence Act. So, order of the trial court does not suffer from any

illegality or infirmity. So, petition is devoid of merits and liable to

be dismissed.

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

Pending application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 96.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)