Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Vijay Laxmi vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:2232) on 14 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:2232] (1 of 4) [CRLMP-473/2015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 473/2015
Smt. Vijay Laxmi W/o Sh. Shishpal, R/o Village Chak 52 NP
Police Station, Sameja-Kothi, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Kanta W/o Sh. Rajkumar, R/o Chak 22(A), Tehsil
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 471/2015
Smt. Usha Rani W/o Sh. Gandharva Singh, R/o 22A, Tehsil
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Kanta W/o Sh. Rajkumar, R/o Chak 22(A), Tehsil
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal R Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu
Mr. Pradeep Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
14/01/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
niceties of the matter, more particularly the order dated
13.11.2014 and order dated 04.02.2015 passed by learned court
of revision.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, the stated facts of the case are
that the respondent No.2 who had submitted a criminal complaint
on the basis of which a first information report got lodged inter
[2025:RJ-JD:2232] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-473/2015]
alia alleging that on 20.07.2013 when she went to the office of
gram panchayat where the secretary Vijay Laxmi scuffled with her
despicably and used abusive language indicating her caste, as a
consequence of which she fall on the floor and received injuries.
The matter was thoroughly investigated by the police, however
after conducting thorough investigation no case as alleged in the
FIR No.374/2013 was found proved and that a negative final
report came to be submitted.
3. The complainant made a protest to the opinion of
investigating officer and thus, the learned Magistrate initiated an
inquiry contemplated under Section 200 & 204 of the Cr.P.C. She
was examined as CW1 and her witnesses Maya Devi, Jagdish,
Jogendra Singh & Mahendra Singh as CW2, 3, 4 & 5 respectively.
Whereafter hearing the counsel for the complainant and going
through the material brought on record, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offence while neglecting the negative final
report. At the same time process was issued against the
petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioners preferred a criminal
revision petition bearing Revision Petition No.26/2014. Vide order
dated 04.02.2015 the learned court of revision dismissed the
revision while concurring with the observation of learned
Magistrate.
5. As a matter of fact, there has been two different narratives
at the instance of two different persons one is the petitioner here
and the other is respondent No.2. In a case lodged at the instance
of the petitioner party, the complainant Kanta and others were
prosecuted and after a full fledged trial, vide order dated
[2025:RJ-JD:2232] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-473/2015]
23.01.2017 the complainant party was found guilty of the offence
under Section 332, 353, 504 of the IPC and accordingly
sentenced. The facts which are narrated here in this complaint
under challenge showing the defence of the complainant party in
their prosecution and paragraph 28 of the judgment dated
23.01.2017 passed by learned Magistrate has dealt with the issue
of defence taken by the complainant Kanta and these were not
believed rather discarded and that is why they were convicted.
6. Indisputably, the incident was one but two reports were
lodged with two different narratives. One narrative taken by the
petitioner party has been approved by the Court of competent
jurisdiction after taking on record the entire material of the case
and hearing both the parties. There can be no two opinions with
regard to two different narratives of one incident. The another
aspect of this case is that after conducting thorough investigation
and for which independent witnesses were also examined along
with inspection of the site, the Investigating Officer was of the
view that a patently false case was lodged by Smt. Kanta and the
allegations levelled by her were not found proved in light of the
other available material. This Court is of the view that whenever a
criminal court proceed to take cognizance of an offence on a
negative final report, it is supposed to, rather obligated to, discuss
the opinion of Investigating Officer and if he feels to proceed
further in the matter, he is required to show his complete
disagreement with the final report submitted by the police agency.
The grounds taken in the negative final report are required to be
dealt with. Ofcourse, the Magistrate is not supposed to concur
with the opinion of the investigating agency and he can take a
[2025:RJ-JD:2232] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-473/2015]
different way to what have been proposed by the agency, yet he is
expected to assign reason as to why the opinion shown and the
grounds raised in the closer report are not acceptable.
7. A bare perusal of the order passed by learned Magistrate
dated 13.11.2024 making it abundantly clear that no such task
was undertaken by the Magistrate before issuance of process.
8. It is well settled principle of law that issuance of process for
compelling the accused to face the course of trial certainly
infringes fundamental right of an accused if the order of process is
not in consonance with the spirit of law and justice. Reliance can
be placed upon the celebrated judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr Vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998, SC 128.
9. Learned Court of Revision was expected to examine the
legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by learned
Magistrate but it seems that he failed to exercise the power and
authority he was possessing rather concurred with the order
passed by learned Magistrate in a casual manner which in my view
is not sustainable. In view of the above the misc. petition
succeeds. Both the orders dated 13.11.2014 and 04.02.2015 are
hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are exonerated
from the charges. No further order is required.
10. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
4-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
