Devendra Kumar Singhal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6121 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1190/2011


Devendra Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Om Prakash Singhal, aged
about 35 years, R/o 10-A, Ganesh Vihar, Gopalpura Bye Pass,
Jaipur, Proprietor of M/s Computer Elements, Shop No.G-103,
Raisar Plaza, Indra Bazar, Jaipur.

                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

2. Rameshwar Sharma S/o Hanuman Sahai Sharma, aged about
25 years, R/o C-26, Shiv Colony, Opp. Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur.

                                                                      ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashwant Kankhedia, PP Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary, Adv. with Mr. Karan Audichya, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 07.09.2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 09.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.

C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside

the impugned order of cognizance dated 19.04.2011 passed by

the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur, Metropolitan City, in

Criminal Case No.1035/2011 arising out of FIR No.61/11

registered at police station Kotwali, Jaipur for the offence under

Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and also the criminal

proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1035/2011.

                                       (2 of 5)                      [CRLMP-1190/2011]



     Learned     counsel     for     the     petitioner          submits    that   the

respondent No.2 lodged a false report against the petitioner at

Police Station-Kotwali, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the petitioner is innocent reputed

businessman. A bare perusal of the FIR does not disclose any

offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it

is a business dispute but criminal colour has been given to it.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner

had not given any guarantee to the complainant for business

transaction with the Sachin Bhardwaj. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that the complainant had collusion with the

police authority with ulterior motive. Charge-sheet has been filed

against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that learned trial Court without application of mind took

the cognizance under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner had given

notice for proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act to the complainant. After that, complainant has

lodged the present FIR against the petitioner. So, order of the

cognizance as well as the criminal proceedings initiated against

the petitioner be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon the following judgments:-(1) Dilip Singh Vs./ State Of

Madhya Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2021) SCC 799; (2)

Anand Kumar Mohatta And Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) Department of Home and another reported in AIR

2019 SC 210;(3) Commissioner Of Police and Ors. Vs.

Devender Anand and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 3807; (4)

B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee and Anr. reported in AIR

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1190/2011]

2008 SC 210; (5) M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs.

Special Judicial Magistrate and Others reported in AIR 1998

SC 128; (6) Prashant Bharti Vs. State OF NCT of Delhi

reported in 2013(9) SCC 293.

Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public

Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after investigation,

charge-sheet under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC has been

filed against the petitioner and charges also framed against the

petitioner but petitioner had not challenged the order of charge by

way of revision. Learned counsel for the respondents further

submitted that order of the cognizance was merged in order of the

charge. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that

the petitioner and co-accused Sachin Bhardwaj hatched a

conspiracy and petitioner had given guarantee to the complainant

to give goods to the Sachin Bhardwaj. Learned counsel for the

respondents further submits that on the guarantee of the

petitioner, complainant had given computer spare parts Rs. 14 lacs

to the Sachin Bhardwaj. Learned counsel for the respondent also

submitted that during investigation, it was revealed that Sachin

Bhardwaj had sold the said spare parts of the computer in 50 per

cent amount. During the custodial interrogation, computer parts

were recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

respondent further submitted that the trial is going on and

petitioner is at liberty to take all defence and averments during

the trial. So, petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance

upon the following judgments:- (1) Hareram Satpathy Vs.

Tikaram Agarwala and others reported in AIR SC 1568; (2)

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1190/2011]

U. P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s Mohan Meakins Ltd.

and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1456; (3) Jagdish Ram

Vs. State Of Rajasthan and another reported in AIR 2004 SC

1734; (4) Manroop Ram Vs. State reported in 1998(7) SCC

698; (5) Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander And Another

reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460; (6) Iridium India Telecom

Limited Vs. Motorola Incorporated and others reported in

(2011) SCC 74; (7) Dharam Pal and others Vs. State Of

Haryana and anr. reported in (2014) SCC 306.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitione, learned Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsel for the respondent.

It is an admitted position that after investigation,

charge-sheet under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC has been

filed against the petitioner and co-accused Sachin Bhardwaj in the

competent Court. After that, Competent Court framed the charges

under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner. It is

also admitted position that the petitioner had not challenged the

order of framing of charge. During investigation, Investigating

Officer had recovered the computer parts from the petitioner and

Investigating Officer in charge-sheet clearly stated that the

petitioner and co-accused Sachin Bhardwaj hatched a conspiracy

and taken goods from complainant as well as other persons on

credit. After that, Sachin Bhardwaj had sold the said goods in 50

per cent. So, in my considered opinion, no ground to quash the

order of cognizance as well as further proceedings is made out

and the present petition is being devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-1190/2011]

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands

dismissed.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/80

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)