Radha Raman Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6244 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1090/2010

Radha Raman Gupta S/o Murari Lal Gupta, R/o Khirli Mandi,
District Alwar (Raj.) presently posted as Assistant Inspector, PS
Mathura Gate, Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through PP
2. Ramsahay S/o Harivilas, R/o infront of Panchayat Samiti
Basedi, presently posted at Arakshi No.200, Police Line, Dholpur
(Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP Mr. Dinesh Kala

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

Order Reserved on :: 15.9.2022 Order Pronounced on :: 19.9.2022

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C to

quash and set aside the impugned order dt. 5.9.2005 passed by

learned Magistrate, Rajakhera and order dt.9.4.2010 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Criminal Revision Petition

No.243/2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court

vide order dt. 5.9.2005 wrongly taken the cognizance against the

petitioner u/s 167 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that petitioner had filed the revision petition

and revisional court set aside the order of the trial court. After

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1090/2010]

that, complainant-respondent had filed a revision petition before

this court and this court vide order dt. 20.1.2009 remanded the

matter to the revisional court to decide the matter afresh after

taking the consideration of judgment of Raj Kumar Roy vs.

Kamleshwar Pandey & anr. reported in 2002 (2) WLC (SC)

(Criminal) 321. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

after that revisional court vide order dt. 9.4.2010 confirmed the

order of the trial court dt. 5.9.2005. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that petitioner was at that time SHO in

Police Station Deholi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner has protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C. without obtaining

prosecution sanction, complaint could not be initiated against the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

complainant placed the fake order before the trial court and

instigated the trial court for taking cognizance against the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Superintendent of Police, Dholpur vide order dt. 11.6.2006 which

is placed as Annexure-6 in the file at para No.15 clearly stated

that extraordinary leave of 4 days of petitioner from 20.1.2002 to

23.1.2002 sanctioned but petitioner placed fake order before the

trial court which is filed as Annexure-7 in which forged entries

were done by the petitioner that Superintendent of Police, Dholpur

had regularized his absence from 20.1.2002 to 23.1.2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had

lodged the forged complaint against Janak Singh Jatav. After

investigation, charge sheet u/s 323, 341, 166, 195 IPC and

Section 19/54 of Arms Act was filed against the petitioner and

petitioner was also punished in departmental inquiry and one

yearly increment was withheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1090/2010]

also submits that order of the trial court as well as revisional court

be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

following judgments:- (1) P.K. Choudhary vs. Commander, 48

BRTF (GREF) reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 330; (2) Keya

Mukherjee vs. Magma Leasing Limited & anr. 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC)

333; (3) Anjani Kumar vs. State of Bihar & anr. 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC)

466; (4) D.T. Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subash (2015) 12 SCC 231;

(5) Om Prakash and ors. vs. State of Jharkhand through the

Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchi I and anr. (2012) 12 SCC

72; (6) Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and ors.(2011)

3 SCC 351; (7) Krishnan & anr. Vs. Krishnaveni decided on

24.10.1997; (8) Shakuntala Devi & ors vs. Chamru Mahto & anr.

in Criminal Appeal No.258/2009 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1624

of 2007; (9) Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & anr. in Criminal

Appeal No.1407/2012 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1516 of 2010.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that present petition is not maintainable and also

submitted that respondent had filed an appeal against

departmental inquiry and also submitted that order of trial court

as well as revisional court do not suffer from illegality or infirmity.

Petitioner has liberty to raise all the objections at the time of trial.

So, petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

following judgments: (1) State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi

in Criminal Appeal No.497/2001 decided on 29.11.2004; (2)

Jhanwar Lal vs. State of Raj. 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 316; (3)

Yogendra Kumar Chaturvedi vs. Ashok Kumar Goyal & anr. in

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1090/2010]

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1487/2006 decided on 14.8.2006;

(4) Santosh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan through Public

Prosecutor 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 694; (5) Shiv Shankar Singh

vs. State of Bihar & anr. 2012 (1) WLC (SC) Cri.485; (5) Gugan

Ram & ors. vs. State of Raj. & anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.1162/07 decided on 23.4.2008.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent.

It is an admitted position that at the time of incident,

petitioner was SHO, Deholi and he had done entries in the

Rojnamcha in the official capacity. So, in my considered opinion,

trial court as well as revisional court erred that petitioner is not

entitled to get protection of 197 Cr.P.C. So, without obtaining

prosecution sanction, complaint filed by the complainant is not

maintainable. So, order of the trial court dated 5.9.2005 as well as

revisional court order dt. 9.4.2010 are not legally sustainable. So,

present petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

Therefore, petition stands allowed and orders of the trial

court dt.5.9.2005 as well as revisional court dt. 9.4.2010 are set

aside.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Brijesh 98.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)