Rajasthan High Court
Vijendra Singh Bhati S/O Shri Kaan Singh ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jp:38759) on 11 December, 2023
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:38759]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1442/2020
Vijendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Kaan Singh Bhati, Aged About 40
Years, R/o A-56, Marudgar Nagar, Lane No. 4, Dcm Ajmer Raod,
Chitrakoot, Jaipur. (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mahima Dutta Sharma W/o Late Shri Rajesh Sharma,
Aged About 48 Years, R/o At Present K-10, Krishan Ganj,
Amer, Raj. Permanent Address- 16, Kanti Nagar, Bani
Park, Jaipur (West), Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GA-
cum-AAG with Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna,
PP
Dr. P.C. Jain with Mr. Divesh Tripathi &
Ms. Kriti Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
11/12/2023
1. The present misc. petition, filed under Section 482 of
CrPC, was filed seeking quashing of the impugned FIR No.
0672/2019 dated 05.12.2019 registered at PS Chitrakoot, Jaipur
(West) for the alleged offence under Section 384, 376 and 120-B
of IPC, the impugned Final Report for offence under Section 384
and 376 of IPC, and the consequent Criminal Case No. 09/2020
titled as 'State vs. Vijendra Singh Bhati' pending before court of
Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) No. 2 Jaipur
Metropolitan City.
[2023:RJ-JP:38759] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1442/2020]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, who is a bachelor aged about 40 years, and the
prosecutrix, who is a widowed lady aged about 47 years working
in Indian Railway, were in a live-in relationship from the year
2015-2018. The husband of the prosecutrix died in the year 2012
and thereafter the parties came close to each other and decided to
live together, with the blessing of their respective families.
However, on account of personal differences, this relationship was
mutually dissolved and the parties separated in 2018 and even
executed a notarized document dated 02.02.2018, in which they
clearly stated that they were parting ways. It was also
acknowledged by the prosecutrix that she had to repay the loan of
Rs. 12 lakhs to the petitioner within a period of six months of
executing the notarized document dated 02.02.2018. The fact that
the parties were in a consensual relationship and the fact that
they executed the notarized document dated 02.02.2018 is also
admitted by the prosecutrix, both in the FIR and in her statements
recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. Despite that, the impugned
FIR was filed, only to harass the petitioner and with the intention
to create pressure on the petitioner to withdraw the negotiable
instrument proceedings without even repaying the principal
amount.
3. In support of his contention that the impugned FIR is
baseless and abuse of criminal process of law, learned counsel for
the petitioner made the following submissions:
3.1. That the FIR itself was filed with a delay of almost four
years from the occurrence of alleged offence and after a delay of
[2023:RJ-JP:38759] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1442/2020]
almost two years from execution of notarized agreement dated
02.02.2018.
3.2. That even if the allegations against the petitioner are
taken at their face value, no case is made out for offence under
Section 384 of IPC.
3.3. That the allegation levelled against the sister and
brother in law of petitioner, of illegally alienating the personal
property of the prosecutrix, are also baseless. The prosecutrix
herself had sold a part of her property, through a registered sale
deed, to the sister of the petitioner. Even the investigating
authorities found that no case was made against the sister and
brother-in-law of petitioner as the final report was filed only
against the petitioner.
3.4. That alternative remedy of revision would not operate
as an absolute bar on petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC.
Reliance in this regard is placed on Prabhu Chawla vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.: AIR 2016 SC 4245.
3.5. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court,
has in a catena of judgments, quashed the criminal proceedings in
similar facts and circumstances. Reliance in placed on Hon'ble
Supreme Court judgments of (i) Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors.: AIR 2022 SC 3901, (ii) Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.:
AIR 2019 SC 4010, (iii) Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors.: AIR 2011 SC 2258, (iv) Harshendra Kumar
D. vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors.: (2011) 3 SCC 351; and
judgments of this Court in (i) Sita Ram Suiwal v. State of
Rajasthan: 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 4091, (ii) Ratan Lal & Ors.
[2023:RJ-JP:38759] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1442/2020]
vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 161, (iii)
Radhakrishan Meena v. State of Rajasthan: 2022 SCC
OnLine Raj 3228, and (iv) Vishal Bairwa vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.: (SBCRLMP No. 7320/2022, decided on
02.12.2022).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the present misc. petition, after the order of cognizance by a
competent Court, is not maintainable as the appropriate remedy
would be filing of revision petition. On merits, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that the respondent-victim was duped and
coerced by the petitioner. It is submitted that the husband of the
respondent-victim was acquainted with the petitioner and they
used to consume liquor together frequently and that the husband
of the petitioner also died prematurely due to excessive liquor
consumption. It is contended that the petitioner took advantage of
the victim while she was in a vulnerable state after death of her
husband. It is further contended that since the matter is pending
with Trial Court, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of CrPC, should be cautious not to interfere in the
proceedings when there are several disputed question of facts,
which can only be adjudged by the Trial Court. It is also
highlighted that a protest petition is also filed by the respondent
against the non filing of charge-sheet against the sister and
brother-in-law of the petitioner, and the same is pending as the
entire proceedings have been stayed since long. Learned counsel
for the respondent has placed reliance on Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment of Kaptan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors.: AIR 2021 SC 3931.
[2023:RJ-JP:38759] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1442/2020]
5. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides,
scanned the record of the petition and considered the judgments
cited at Bar.
6. Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it must be
stated that the exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC is an
exception and not the rule. This Court only has to see whether the
essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not. The
truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not
matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under
Section 482 of CrPC as the same are undoubtedly exercises to be
undertaken by the Trial Court.
7. In the present case, it is noted that the petitioner was
acquainted with the husband of the prosecutrix and they used to
consume liquor together frequently. The parties lived together
after death of husband of the respondent and also conducted
some financial transactions, the details of which are placed on
record. The respondent has also preferred protest petition against
the non-filing of charge-sheet against the co-accused, who are the
sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner. The investigating
authorities, after due consideration of evidence, have found a
prima facie case against the petitioner. The respondent, who is a
widowed lady aged about 47 years, found solace with the
petitioner for some time, but separated from the petitioner after a
few years of living together. Thereafter, the respondent has
levelled some serious allegations against not just the petitioner,
but also against his sister and brother in law. The veracity of these
allegations, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be determined at
this premature stage, without detailed elaboration of evidence.
[2023:RJ-JP:38759] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1442/2020]
8. In these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
view that no finding can be given by this Court without detailed
appreciation of evidence on record. Since the same is
impermissible, this Court is not inclined to interfere.
9. However, considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the petitioner shall
remain bailed out during trial.
10. In view of the above, the present petition stands
disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/s-3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
