Rajasthan High Court

Kush Kumar Jangir S/O Shri Vijendra ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2024

Author: Praveer Bhatnagar

Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar

[2024:RJ-JP:8617]                       (1 of 7)                      [CRLR-1296/2022]


        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1296/2022
Kush Kumar Jangir S/o Shri Vijendra Jangir, aged about 31
Years, R/o 56, Padam Vihar, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor

2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Kailash Chand, presently residing At 267/39, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1303/2022 Kush Kumar Jangir S/o Shri Vijendra Jangir, R/o 56, Padam Vihar, Mansarovar Jaipur (Raj)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor

2. Dilip Kumar Soni S/o Not Known to Petitioner, aged about 50 Years, Presently Posted as SHO Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur (South)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subodh Jangid & Mr. Vikram Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP Mr. Kapil Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 28/02/2024

1. By way of this order these Criminal Revision Petitions bearing

Nos.1296/2022 & 1303/2022 are being disposed of.

2. Petitioner Kush Kumar Jangir has preferred two revision

petitions against the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 passed by

Additional Session Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan - I, Jaipur in

[2024:RJ-JP:8617] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1296/2022]

Criminal Revision Petition Nos.93/2022 (CIS No.401/2022) &

86/2022 (CIS No.376/2022) whereby the Revision Petitions filed

by respondent No.2 Mukesh Kumar (in Criminal Revision Petition

No.1296/2022) & respondent No.2 Dilip Kumar Soni (in Criminal

Revision Petition No.1303/2022) were accepted and the order

dated 02.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate No.10, Jaipur Metro under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C

directing the SHO, Police Station Mansarovar to register the FIR

and submit the final report was quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

order dated 19.07.2022 is per-se illegal. He further submits that

learned revisional court passed the order in a hurried manner

violating parameters of law. He also submits that prospective

accused has no right to ask in which way investigating against him

should be conducted. He also submits that scope of revision is

limited and revisional court exercised the power arbitrarily. The

learned revisional court also committed illegality by reappreciating

the fact of the case and evidence as court of original jurisdiction

which is impermissible under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the

impugned order dated 19.07.2022 may be set aside.

4. In the complaint, petitioner alleges that respondent Mukesh

Kumar in connivance with Dilip Kumar Soni, SHO, Police Station

Mansarovar, Jaipur has forged the patta bearing number 56 A.

The complaint also avers that respondents Mukesh Kumar and

Dilip Kumar Soni have formed a gang with other persons namely

Ramavtar and Anil Kumar to grab land and are regularly tossing

liquor parties on the disputed plot numbers A 39, 40 and 41 at

Padam Vihar.

[2024:RJ-JP:8617] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1296/2022]

5. After filing the aforesaid complaint factual report from the

concerned police station was sought and in a factual report dated

24.04.2022 it was reported that an FIR bearing No.854/2021 had

already been instituted against the complainant Mukesh Kumar for

forging the patta of plot number 56 A and complainant Mukesh

Kumar has also filed an FIR showing his possession over plot

numbers A 39, 40 and 41.

6. For the same plots, one Pratap Singh Solanki has also filed

the FIR bearing No.747/2021 showing his possession and the

investigation is still pending. It also contains a fact that the

complaint sent by the petitioner has also been received and

despite summoning the complainant he is not marking his

presence.

7. The learned revisional court in the impugned order has

referred various orders passed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by High

Court at para 16 of its order regarding FIR Nos.854/2021,

637/2021 and 747/2021 wherein petitioners Pratap Singh

Sankhla, Mukesh Kumar and Deepak Jangid have sought prayer

for a fair investigation.

8. In the above-referred petitions, SHO, Police Station has

submitted a report dated 13.01.2022 concluding that the

documents prepared by Pratap Singh are forged and petitioner

Mukesh Kumar has valid possession over the disputed land.

9. In the impugned order, the court has also referred that

against FIR Nos.7092/2021 and 747/2021 respondent Mukesh

Kumar has sought prayer for quashing the aforesaid FIRs and in

these FIRs the High Court has put the investigation in abeyance.

[2024:RJ-JP:8617] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1296/2022]

10. Similarly in a criminal miscellaneous petition preferred by

accused Deepak Kumar for quashing FIR No.854/2021, the

investigation officer has opined his involvement.

11. After clubbing all the petitions the court directed respondent

Dilip Kumar Soni, SHO, Police Station Mansarovar to conduct the

investigation. The revisional court has also referred that in a civil

suit preferred by respondent Mukesh Kumar, complainants Kush

Kumar Jangir and Rahul Jangid have been restrained not to erect

any construction.

12. Before the High Court investigation report was submitted in

which it was opined that complainants Kush Kumar Jangir, Rahul

Jangid and other accused have fabricated forged documents of

plot No.56A.

13. The High Court also expressed its satisfaction with the

investigation and further directed to ensure the arrest of accused

persons.

14. The revisional court also recorded that the above facts were

brought before the trial court, however despite the above facts the

trial court directed to institute the FIR on the complaint preferred

by the complainant Kush Kumar Jangir. The revisional court also

opined that the complainant has reiterated the facts for which an

investigation has already been initiated and conducted in FIR

No.854/2021. Similarly in FIR No.747/2021 after the investigation

police found the involvement of Pratap Singh in fabricating a

forged document concerning plot numbers A 39, 40 and 41. The

revisional court also opined that for the same facts institution of

two FIRs is an abuse of the judicial process. The revisional court

relied upon the judgments rendered in the matters of Sourabh

[2024:RJ-JP:8617] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1296/2022]

Garg & Rajshekhar. The revisional court also relied upon the

Judgment rendered in Devi Dutt vs State of Rajasthan & Anr

wherein the court held as under:-

"19. For the reasons mentioned above as also looking to the fact that police has prepared negative final report in this matter and they are going to submit the same in the court concerned, there is no need to pass the order in this petition, which has been filed for quashing the FIR. However, in order to curb the practice of filing false complaints by the complainants with a view to take wreck vengeance, this petition is disposed of with the following directions; I) No Magistrate shall send the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the police station concerned unless and untill he himself/herself does not satisfy prima-facie from a bare reading of the contents of complaint that any cognizable offence is made out.

II) The Magistrate concerned will also ask for the report from the police station concerned whether the complainant had tried to lodge the FIR or not, and if it is so, then what steps had he taken for lodging the FIR - whether he submitted any report to the Police Station concerned or SP concerned or any other concerned authority. III) The magistrate concerned will also see in the complaint, whether the complainant has simply named the accused persons with ill motive just to gain or achieve something by way of filing the complaint.

IV) He will also see while forwarding the complaint to the concerned police station that prima-facie case is made out against each of the accused person/persons, whose names have been mentioned in the complaint.

V) He will also see the requirements of law for sending the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC to the concerned police station.

VI) The Magistrate concerned for verifying the truth and to test the veracity of the allegations should ask for an affidavit from the complainant, who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. This affidavit can make the complainant more responsible and if an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

VII) Magistrate concerned should always keep in mind while a complaint has been filed before him that invoking the jurisdiction by him is alternate remedy. They should avoid invoking this alternate remedy to curb the practice of filing false complaints for the reason that issuing a direction to lodge an FIR on the basis of false complaints creates a very unhealthy situation in the society. It also encourages the unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, to bring the victim on their knees for the purpose of taking revenge or wreck vengeance.

VIII) While sending the complaints to the Police Station concerned U/s.156(3) CrPC for the purpose of registering the

[2024:RJ-JP:8617] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1296/2022]

FIR, the Magistrate concerned shall pass the order in his own writing.

20. Magistrate concerned should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid points before venturing into sending the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC to the police for investigation, otherwise he may take the alternate remedy, which is provided under the Criminal Procedure Code."

The revisional court also put its reliance referring the

Judgment rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1224/2009

Rajendra Kumar vs State & Ors dated 23.01.2013 wherein the

court held as under:-

"Thus, this Court whilst exercising its supervisory powers over the Courts of the judicial Magistrates and for ensuring proper disposal of cases, exercising the powers enshrined in the Court under Section 483 Cr.P.C is of the opinion that a direction needs to be issued to all the Magistrates in the State that whenever the Court is dealing with any complaint under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. which has been filed against public servant/servants, the Court shall generally resort to an inquiry/investigation under sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. so that the complete factual material/scenario in relation to the act alleged can be collected and brought on record for the consideration thereof by the concerned Magistrate for proceeding further under Sections 203/204 Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, the following direction is issued to all the Magistrates in the State of Rajasthan Court exercising supervisory powers of this Court under Section 483 Cr.P.C: - "whenever any complaint received by the Court under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C is being proceeded with by the Court under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. i.e. under the provisions of Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. against Public servant/servants wherein the allegations give rise to a reasonable belief that the same may have been filed in relation to an act committed by the public servant in the discharge/purported discharge of official duty, the Court shall generally resort to an inquiry/investigation by the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C before proceeding further in the matter."

The revisional court also expressed that in the impugned

order under Section 156(3) CrPC the Magistrate did not follow the

above law and in a cursory manner directed the police to register

the FIR.

15. The learned revisional court after taking into consideration

the factual report submitted before the trial court so also the

[2024:RJ-JP:8617] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1296/2022]

material showing that for the same facts FIR has already been

lodged and investigated, rightly allowed the revision petition

preferred by the respondents Mukesh Kumar and Dilip Kumar

Soni.

16. The order of the concerned revisional court is well-reasoned