Rajasthan High Court

Ranjeet Kumar S/O Shri Gopal Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 September, 2023

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

[2023:RJ-JP:25042]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9037/2022

Ranjeet Kumar S/o Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Jagdish Hotel, Medical Market Road, Near Sulabh Complex,
Ladpura Kota
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.       Pinky Mahawar W/o Shriranjeet Kumar D/o Late Shri
         Latur Lal, R/o House No. 317-318, Keshavpura, Sector-6
         Kota
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr Mukesh Sharma
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP
                                   Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

                                         Order

12/09/2023

The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the petitioner-complainant Ranjeet Kumar for assailing the

order dated 25.08.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kota rejecting the criminal

revision (No.01/2021) preferred by him and affirming the order

dated 09.03.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, No.7,

Kota in regular CIS No.1653/2017 (FR No.159/2017) whereby the

learned trial court while accepting the FR filed by the investigating

agency, rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner

-complainant.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant

submitted a complaint in the court of learned Addl.

[2023:RJ-JP:25042] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-9037/2022]

Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Kota inter alia alleging that his

marriage with the respondent No.2 Pinky Mahawar was

solemnized in the year 2011. However, she has been residing with

her parents since 2013 and she has lodged several false and

frivolous cases against him. It was alleged in the complaint that

the accused/respondent No.2 has been receiving pension under

the scheme of Rajasthan State Government from Social Justice

and Empowerment Department. She is also receiving pension for

her daughter under Palanhar Pension Scheme. It is claimed in the

complaint that she is not entitled for pension benefits and has

been getting the same on the basis of false and fabricated

documents. It has been alleged in the complaint that the

respondent No.2 has lodged cases for domestic violence but in

none of the case, she has mentioned this fact of receiving family

pensions.

The learned trial court forwarded the complaint to the Police

Station Nayapura for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

After investigation, the police found the complaint to be false and

submitted a negative final report before the learned court

concerned against which, the petitioner filed a protest petition and

examined himself as witness and prayed the learned trial court to

take cognizance against the respondent No.2 for offences under

Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The learned trial court after

hearing arguments from both the sides, rejected the protest

petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the negative final

report filed by the police vide order dated 09.03.2021. Being

aggrieved of the order dated 09.03.2021, the petitioner filed a

revision petition (No.01/2021) before the learned Special Judge,

[2023:RJ-JP:25042] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-9037/2022]

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Kota. However, the

learned revisional court, too vide its order dated 25.08.2022

dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed

the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned trial court.

Hence this misc. petition.

Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the

petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the learned trial

court seriously erred in rejecting the protest petition filed by the

petitioner-complainant and accepting the negative final report filed

by the investigating agency. He contends that the respondent No.2

gave false statement on oath for getting pension whereas she is

not entitled for the same and as such, it is clear that prima facie

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC is made out

against the respondent No.2. He further contends that the learned

trial court has committed grave illegality in accepting the Final

Report without considering the material available on record which

clearly shows that the accused respondent No.2 has committed

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. He further

contends that the learned revisional court too overlooked this

important aspect of the matter and affirmed the order passed by

the learned trial court. He thus, prays that the instant criminal

misc. petition may be accepted and the orders passed by the

learned courts below may be rejected.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 oppose the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that after due

application of mind, two courts of competent jurisdiction have

recorded concurrent findings of facts and as such, no interference

[2023:RJ-JP:25042] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-9037/2022]

is required in the orders impugned. They thus, sought dismissal

of the instant misc. petition.

After having heard and considered the submissions advanced

by counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and after going through

the impugned orders, I am of the opinion that the trial court has

duly applied its mind to the facts of the case and has passed a

well reasoned order accepting the negative final report submitted

by the investigating agency and rejecting the protest petition filed

by the petitioner. There is nothing on record which suggests that

the respondent No.2 has furnished any wrong information for

getting pension benefit or that she has prepared any forged

documents. The order passed by the trial court has also been

rightly affirmed by the revisional court. Two courts of competent

jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts. Both the

courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction and discretion

in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for accepting the protest

petition.

It is worth mentioning that in the garb of present petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has filed second revision

petition which is not maintainable. In the case of Deepti @ Arati

Rai vs Akhil Rai & Ors. vs. Akhil Rai & Ors. reported in [1995] 0

SCC (Cri) 1020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"4. .................The High Court also should have taken care to verify the record before accepting the concession made by the learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after

[2023:RJ-JP:25042] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-9037/2022]

dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can not be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As we find that the order passed by the High Court is not legal and just it will have to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur to proceed further with Criminal Case No. 69 of 1993."

In the case of Wajid Mirza vs. Mohammed Ali Ahmed, : 1982 CriLJ

590, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as under:-

"23. This Court in Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy, (1979) 1 AJLJ 1 : AIR 1979 Andra Pra 146 at p. 149 (FB) held :-

The language of sub-section (3) of Section 397 contains no ambiguity. If any person had already chosen to file a revision before the High Court or to the Sessions Court under subsection (1), the same person cannot prefer a further application to the other Court. To put it in other words, sub- sec.(1) and (3) make it clear that a person aggrieved by any order or proceeding can seek remedy by way of revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Once, he has availed himself of the remedy, he is precluded from approaching the other forum. It is equally manifest from the provisions of sub-section (3) that this bar is limited to the same person who has already chosen to go either to the High Court or to the Sessions court seeking a remedy and that it does not apply to the other parties or persons.‟

[2023:RJ-JP:25042] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-9037/2022]

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or

infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference therein.