Peoples Union For Civil Liberties vs State Of Raj And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6223 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1696/2018

Peoples Union For Civil Liberties Through Kailash Meena Son Of
Shri Narsa Ram Meena, R/o Village Bharala, Police Station Neem
Ka Thana, District Sikar
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan Through Its Public Prosecutor
2.     Alok Gupta S/o Shri K.k. Gupta, R/o 48A, Alkapuri, Alwar,
       Rajasthan
                                                               ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1697/2018 Peoples Union For Civil Leberties Through Kailash Meena Son Of Shri Narsa Ram Meena, R/o Village Bharala, Police Station Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Public Prosecutor

2. Laxminarayan Meena, The Then Superintended Of Police Silkar (Died)

3. Shri Sarwar, The Then Additional Superintended Of Police, Sikar

4. Shri Ramrakh, The Then District Collector Sikar Now Retired (Died)

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1698/2018 Peoples Union For Liberties Through Kailash Meena Son Of Shri Narsa Ram Meena, R/o Village Bharala, Police Station Neema Ka Thana, District Sikar

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

2. Sukhbeer Singh S/o Late Shri Pabudan Singh, R/o Village Kriparam Ji Ki Dhani, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, The Then Parwari Gram Panchayat Generi, District Sikar

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-1696/2018]

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1844/2018 Peoples Union For Civil Liberties Through Kailash Meena S/o Shri Narsa Ram Meena, R/o Village Bharala, Police Station Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

2. Kurdaram Saini S/o Gyanaram Saini, Village Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ganeri, R/o Village Ganeri, Police Station Laxmangarh, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. K. Purohit, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Prem Kishan Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. in S.B.

Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1696/2018 Mr. Alladeen Khan, Adv. for respondent No.3 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1697/2018 Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Adv. in S.B.

Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1698/2018

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 13.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 16.09.2022

These Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482

Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated

20.09.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar

whereby the learned revisional court while allowing the revision

petition with regard to respondents and quashed the order of

taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner for offence

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-1696/2018]

punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Rajasthan

Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960 vide order dated 17.10.2008

passed by Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sikar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant-

petitioner had filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate No.2,

Sikar in which trial court vide order dated 17.10.2008 taken the

cognizance against the respondents and Yoonus Khan under

Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Rajasthan Prevention of

Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that respondents had challenged the said order by way of

revision and the revisional court wrongly quashed the cognizance

order against the respondents vide order dated 20.09.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner-

Kailash Meena is a Social Worker and activist of the Human Rights

Organization Peoples Union of Civil Liberties. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that Yoonus Khan held "Chahallum

(Mrityu Bhoj by Muslims) on 26.05.2005 in Village Ganeri, Tehsil

Laxmangarh in which more than one thousand persons had taken

Mrityu Bhoj given by Yoonus Khan. Earlier to that advertisement of

feast was published in Rajasthan Patrika on 25.5.2005. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that trial court had seen

the VCD that was prepared at the time of incident. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that Sukhbeer Singh the

then Patwari and Kurdaram was Gram Panchayat at the time of

Mrityu Bhoj in the village Ganeri and they had not fulfilled the

official duty for giving information. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that Alok Gupta was Collector, Nagaur and

Sarwar Khan was Additional Superintendent of Police, Sikar and

they had participated in the Mrityu Bhoj. Learned counsel for the

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-1696/2018]

petitioner also submits that revisional court wrongly came to the

conclusion that they were in the Protocol of Chief Minister and

other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

revisional court also wrongly came to the conclusion that they

have protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. So, order of the revisional

court be set aside and order of the trial court dated 17.10.2008 be

restored.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments: (1) Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar

Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.787/2021 decided on

13.08.2021 and (2) Veena Bajaj Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition)

NO.3942/2016 decided on 22.01.2020.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well learned counsel for the

respondents have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner-Kailash

Meena has no authority on behalf of the Peoples Union for Civil

Liberties because no resolution had been filed with the petition

before the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondents also

supported the order of the revisional court and submitted that

respondents were in official duty and they were in the Protocol of

Chief Minister & other persons. They had not participated in the

Mrityu Bhoj because no Mrityu Bhoj was organized by the Yoonus

Khan. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in

the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it was clearly observed that

no Mrityu Bhoj was organized. Learned counsel for the

respondents also submitted that cognizance order of the trial court

is time barred because as per Section 10 of the Rajasthan

Prevention of Mrityu Bhoj Act, 1960, no court shall take

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-1696/2018]

cognizance of any offence under this Section after expired of one

year from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been

committed. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted

that as per the complaint, incident of 26.05.2005 and cognizance

was taken by the trial court after a lapse of more than three

years. So, order of the revisional court does not suffer from

illegality or infirmity. So, petitions filed by the petitioner be

dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents and learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that cognizance order taken by the

trial court and set aside by the revisional court against the

respondents. Revisional court in its order clearly stated that trial

court wrongly read the VCD because edited VCD was presented

before the trial court. Revisional court in its order clearly stated

that respondents were on official duty on account of Protocol of

Chief Minister and other persons and they had not participated in

the Mrityu Bhoj because Mrityu Bhoj was not organized by the

Yoonus Khan. So, in my considered opinion, order of the revisional

court does not suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, present

petitions, being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions stand

dismissed.

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin/126, 128-130

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)