Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Panchu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1373) on 9 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1373]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 474/2024
1. Lrs Panchu Ram, Through Lrs
2. Kalu Ram S/o Shri Panchu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/
c Harijan R/o Village Paldi Kallan Tehsil Degana Dist
Nagaur (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhiyan Ram S/o Shri Miyal Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
3. Chatura Ram S/o Shri Bhola Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
4. Kanudi W/o Shri Chatura Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
5. Bofa Ram S/o Shri Maga Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
6. Sugnai W/o Bofa Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan Tehsil
Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
7. Shankar Ram S/o Shri Chatura Ram, R/o Village Paldi
Kallan Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
8. Bheru Ram S/o Shri Alfu Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
9. Kamli W/o Shri Misa Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan Tehsil
Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
10. Rata Ram S/o Shri Chautha Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
11. Shravan Ram S/o Chotha Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
12. Chaina Ram S/o Shri Ratna Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
13. Gopal S/o Shri Misa Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan Tehsil
Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
14. Sugnai W/o Shri Ratna Ram, R/o Village Paldi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
15. Chena Ram S/o Shri Sugna Ram, R/o Bhukron Ki Dhani
Paldi Kallan Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:46:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1373] (2 of 4) [CRLR-474/2024]
16. Ram Lal S/o Shri Purkha Ram, B/c Jat R/o Nimbdi Kallan
Tehsil Degana Dist Nagaur (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Joshi
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/01/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases No.3, Merta
whereby the learned Judge dismissed the protest petition and
accepted the FR filed by the police in FIR No. 135/2016, P.s.padu
Kalan, District Nagaur.
Brief facts of the case are that the father of complainant
Panchu Ram filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police,
Nagaur stating therein that on 05.07.2016, when he was
cultivating the agricultural field alongwith his wife and son, the
accused persons forcibly entered into their field armed with
Kasiya, Kaavadiya, Jaiya etc and assaulted his son Kalu Ram and
tried to kill him by running over the tractor. When the complainant
and his wife tried to rescue their son, the accused persons beaten
them. It was also alleged that the accused persons hurled caste
abuses and stole their tractor and some money.
On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 135/2016 was
registered for the offence under Sections 143, 447, 323, 354, 379
IPC and Section 3(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) act and
[2025:RJ-JD:1373] (3 of 4) [CRLR-474/2024]
after investigation, the police submitted FR 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 No.3, Merta accepted the Final
Report and rejected the protest petition vide order dated
06.02.2024.
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 has rightly rejected the protest petition, which
does not call for any interference.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
order 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1373] (4 of 4) [CRLR-474/2024]
protest petition on the said ground by way of a detailed order. In
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 06.02.2024. Hence, this revision petition is hereby
dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.
Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
10-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
