Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24382) on 20 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24382]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 505/2020
Kanhaiya Lal S/o Ramsawroop, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste
Valmiki, R/o Ward No. 24, Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Kishan Singh S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 46 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o Majipura, Netravas, Tehsil And District
Sikar, At Present Station House Officer, P.s. Raisinghnagar,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NL Joshi
Ms. Kirti Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. RS Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
20/05/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated
04.03.2020, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge,
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Revision No.54/2019
whereby the learned revisional court while allowing the revision of
respondent No.2, set aside the order dated 02.08.2019, passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar
whereby cognizance was taken against the respondent No.2 under
Section 166A IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2019, the petitioner/
complainant filed a complaint before the court of ACJM,
Raisinghnagar stating that on 03.06.2019, his sister was standing
[2025:RJ-JD:24382] (2 of 5) [CRLR-505/2020]
outside their house, when an individual named Gouru arrived on a
motorcycle and allegedly harassed her. Upon raising an alarm,
Gouru fled the scene. On the same day, at about 8:30 PM, about
fifteen persons armed with iron rods, sticks and country-made
pistol arrived at the complainant's house and assaulted him. These
persons also threw bricks upon the petitioner. The said incident
was reported on 04.06.2019 to SHO, PS Raisinghnagar, but he did
not register the FIR. Subsequently, the petitioner sent an
application to concerned S.P. for registration of FIR, however, no
action was taken.
On filing the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the
learned Magistrate sought an explanation from the concerned SHO
regarding the registration of an FIR pertaining to the incident
dated 03.06.2019. Upon which, the SHO clarified that FIR
No.199/2019 had already been registered. However, upon further
inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the Magistrate that FIR
No.199/2019 was related to incident dated 21.07.2019 and not to
the incident dated 03.06.2019. Additionally, an inquiry conducted
by Dy.S.P., Raisinghnagar revealed that no complaint had been
filed at the Police Station. Subsequently, vide order dated
02.08.2019, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the
respondent No.2 for offence under Section 166A IPC.
Against the order dated 02.08.2019, the respondent No.2
filed a revision before the learned Additional Session Judge,
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, which came to be allowed
vide order dated 04.03.2020 and learned revisional court set aside
the order of cognizance dated 02.08.2019. Hence, this revision
petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:24382] (3 of 5) [CRLR-505/2020]
Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the revision
petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the revisional court, it
was alleged that the petitioner had not submitted any report
before the Police Station Raisinghnagar in respect of the incident
dated 03.06.2019. Counsel submits that the learned revisional
court failed to properly scrutinize the record of the case, as the
record clearly contains the application/complaint dated
04.06.2019 given by the petitioner before the SHO, Raisinghnagar.
Despite this, the Police did not register an FIR. Counsel further
submits that the sole basis for allowing the revision of respondent
No.2 is that no report was filed by the petitioner on 04.06.2019
and for the first time, the petitioner filed complaint before the
court on 21.07.2019. However, the record unequivocally
establishes that the petitioner indeed submitted a report before
SHO, Raisinghngar on 04.06.2019. Thus, the impugned order
passed by the revisional court is per se illegal and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
the learned revisional court has rightly set aside the order of
cognizance. The impugned revisional order is a well reasoned
order, warranting no interference from this Court. Counsel has
relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Megha Ram
Vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.4919/2019,
decided on 15.12.2020.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned revisional order as well as order of cognizance and
perused the record.
[2025:RJ-JD:24382] (4 of 5) [CRLR-505/2020]
In the present case, the petitioner reported an incident that
occurred on 03.06.2019 to the SHO, Raisinghnagar, on
04.06.2019. Despite this, the police failed to register an FIR in
connection with the report. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a
complaint under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate
with a request for the registration of an FIR. In response, the
Magistrate sought an explanation from the SHO regarding whether
an FIR had been registered. The SHO initially claimed that FIR
No.199/2019 had been registered. However, it later transpired
that FIR No. 199/2019 pertained to an incident dated 21.07.2019,
and not the incident of 03.06.2019. This discrepancy indicates
that the SHO attempted to mislead the court, which constitutes a
serious act of misconduct and a clear dereliction of his statutory
duties as a public officer.
The learned revisional court, in its order, set aside the order
of cognizance primarily on the ground that there was no record of
a complaint dated 04.06.2019 filed by the petitioner regarding the
incident of 03.06.2019. This reasoning is flawed, as the record
unequivocally contains the report dated 04.06.2019 submitted by
the petitioner. The failure of the revisional court to properly
scrutinize or consider the record constitutes a serious error.
As a police officer and a public servant, it was the
respondent No.2's statutory duty to serve the public by registering
an FIR based on the complaint filed by the petitioner concerning
the incident of 03.06.2019. His neglect to perform this duty not
only breaches the obligation of law enforcement but also erodes
public confidence in the administration of justice. Such dereliction
demonstrates a serious lapse in duty, which cannot be overlooked.
[2025:RJ-JD:24382] (5 of 5) [CRLR-505/2020]
Furthermore, the act of the SHO in providing a false
explanation regarding the registration of the FIR indicates an
attempt to obfuscate the facts and obstruct justice. This
misconduct warrants serious condemnation, as it compromises the
transparency and accountability expected from law enforcement
officers.
In light of these considerations, the learned revisional court
has committed a grave legal error in setting aside the order of
cognizance dated 02.08.2019. The impugned order is founded on
a misapprehension of the facts and ignores the substantive record
evidence. It suffers from legal infirmity and illegality, which
necessitates its quashing and setting aside to uphold the integrity
of the judicial process and ensure that justice is duly
administered.
Hence, the impugned order dated 04.03.2020, passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge, Raisinghnagar in Cr. Revision
No.54/2019 is hereby set aside and the order dated 02.08.2019,
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Raisinghnagar taking cognizance against the respondent No.2
under Section 166A is hereby upheld.
The revision petition is allowed accordingly.
Stay application is also decided.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
80-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
