Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shubhkaran Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8316) on 16 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8316]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 504/2020
Shubhkaran Meghwal S/o Shri Fulla Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Village Neema, Rajgarh, Police
Station Hamirwas, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pratap Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh, By Caste Rajput,
Resident Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station,
District Churu.
3. Neemnath S/o Pratap Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of
Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District Churu.
4. Om Singh S/o Mohan Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of
Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District Churu.
5. Durga Singh S/o Bhag Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District
Churu.
6. Suresh Singh S/o Durga Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District
Churu.
7. Sabar Singh S/o Rameshwar Chouhan, By Caste Rajput,
Resident Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station,
District Churu.
8. Ajay Singh S/o Sayar Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of
Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District Churu.
9. Gulab Singh S/o Mohan Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District
Churu.
10. Madan Singh S/o Radha Krishan, By Caste Rajput,
Resident Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station,
District Churu.
11. Azad Singh S/o Puran Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District
Churu.
12. Anup Singh S/o Indra Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District
Churu.
(Downloaded on 19/02/2024 at 08:53:49 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8316] (2 of 4) [CRLR-504/2020]
13. Leela Singh S/o Indra Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District
Churu.
14. Ummed Singh S/o Bassesar Shekhawat, By Caste Rajput,
Resident Of Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station,
District Churu.
15. Manoj S/o Sumer Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of
Neema, Rajgarh, Hamirwas Police Station, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Shaktawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. Devendra Mahalana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
16/02/2024
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Churu whereby
the learned Judge dismissed the protest petition and accepted the
FR filed by the police in FIR No. 192/2017.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant
submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Hamirwas
stating therein that the accused persons armed with stick, iron rod
and swords assaulted him and his family members and outraged
modesty of his sister-in-law etc.
On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 192/2017 was
registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 342, 354, 448,
435, 504, 143 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i), 3(2)(iv) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and after investigation, submitted FR
[2024:RJ-JD:8316] (3 of 4) [CRLR-504/2020]
that no case is made out against the accused respondents. The
petitioner filed a protest petition before the learned trial court.
After considering the evidence collected during investigation and
recording statement of witnesses, the court of learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu accepted the
Final Report and rejected the protest petition vide order dated
09.05.2019.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering
the material aspect of the matter, the trial court mechanically
rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner. It is argued
that on the basis of statement of the complainant and witnesses
recorded, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the
accused respondents. It is argued that the investigating officer
has not investigated the matter in correct perspective and
therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be remanded back to
the trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and
submitted that the trial court has discussed each and every aspect
of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition, which
does not call for any interference.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
orders impugned so also the record.
It is not disputed that after thorough investigation, the police
submitted a final report to the effect that no case is made out
against the respondents as the petitioner failed to make out a
prima facie case against the respondents. Learned trial court after
considering the Final report submitted by the police, rejected the
protest petition on the said ground by way of a detailed order. In
[2024:RJ-JD:8316] (4 of 4) [CRLR-504/2020]
the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for
disbelieving the negative Final report filed by the police after
thorough investigation. Learned court below after considering the
entire material on record, has accepted the Final report filed by
the police. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
order dated 09.05.2019. Hence, this revision petition is hereby
dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
227-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
