Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roop Singh Inda vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (1 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1350/2023
Jeevaram S/o Tabaram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village
Lachadi Tehsil Sanchore, Dist. Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Bittu Singh S/o Gurmel Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Langiyana, P.s. Badha Purana, Dist. Moga, Punjab
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1447/2023
Roop Singh Inda S/o Sh. Mool Singh Inda, Aged About 33 Years,
the then Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Sanchore, Dist.
Jalore, Presently Posted As Deputy Superintendent Of Police In
Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Jeeva Ram S/o Sh. Taba Ram, Vill. Lachdi, Teh. Sanchore,
Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
Mr. Jagdish Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
Reportable
Reserved on:-04/09/2025
Pronounced on:-25/09/2025
1. The present revision petition as well as criminal appeal have
been filed by the petitioner-complainant and the appellant-
Investigating Officer, respectively challenging the order dated
06.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Jalore, in Sessions Case
No.33/2023 (State of Rajasthan v. Harish & Anr.), whereby the
learned trial Court, while proceeding to take cognizance for
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 304, 3(2)(v)(va),
SC/ST Act, 1989 had issued summons to the accused-Harish @
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (2 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
Harish Kumar, however by way of same order no cognizance has
been taken for offences punishable under Sections 279 & 304(A)
IPC and no process has been issued against co-accused-Bittu
Singh son of Gurmel Singh respondent-No.2 in (Criminal Revision
Petition No.1350/2023) by the learned trial Court, while observing
that there was no material available on record to take cognizance
or issue process against co-accused-Bittu Singh for the offence in
question. By way of the order impugned, the learned Trial Court
has further directed initiation of inquiry against the Investigating
Officer-Roop Singh Inda, the then Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Circle Sanchore, and also the then Superintendent of
Police, Jalore, and further directed for submitting a report after
undertaking the inquiry as provided under Rule 8(ix) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocity) Rules, 1995 (herein after referred as
"rules of 1995" for brevity) before the Director General of Police,
Police Headquarter, Jaipur, so that he can initiate appropriate
proceedings against him, and thereafter to submit the report
before the learned Trial Court, so that further proceedings can be
initiated against the appellant-Roop Singh Inda.
2. The Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the
complainant-Jeeva Ram, being aggrieved against not taking
cognizance and non summoning of Bittu Singh, the driver of the
offending Truck, for offences punishable under Sections 279 &
304(A) of IPC. However, the criminal appeal has been filed by the
Investigating Officer, being aggrieved against the directions issued
for initiating inquiry against him, and the finding that he is guilty
of delinquency in undertaking the investigation and passing of
strictures against him. Since both issues are interlinked and
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (3 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
pertain to challenge to the same order, hence, both the matters
are being decided together.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Based upon a typed report, filed by the complainant-Jeeva
Ram, an FIR No.551/2022 was registered at Police Station
Sanchore, District Jalore, on 16.11.2022 at 19:04 PM. As per the
written report, the complainant stated that accused-Harish Kumar
son of Babu Lal along with two or three persons had assaulted
Shri Dilip Kumar, son of complainant-Jeeva Ram on 14.11.2022 at
around 04:20 PM, at Roadways Bus Stand, Sanchore. It was
asserted that when Dilip Kumar succeeded is getting out of the
grip of the accused-Harish Kumar, the accused started chasing him
with the lathi in his hand with the intention to murder Dilip Kumar.
Apprehending his death, Dilip Kumar started running towards
National Highway No.68, where he was hit by a Truck bearing
registration No. PB-29X-9824. The Truck ran over him, due to
which, Dilip Kumar was rushed to hospital by Chetan son of
Ramkinji, and since his condition was critical and he was taken to
Gujarat hospital. It was further asserted by the complainant-Jeeva
Ram that he has obtained CCTV footage showing the accused-
Harish running behind Dilip Kumar and the Pen-drive with CCTV
footage was also deposited with the Police Officials along with the
written complaint.
3.1 Subsequent to lodging of the FIR, the Police started
investigation and the appellant-Roop Singh Inda, being the
Investigating Officer, first of all tried to get recorded the statement
of the injured. However, the Doctor informed that the injured was
not in a position to give the statement as he was on a ventilator.
The Investigating Officer, thereafter recorded the statements of
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (4 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
the complainant-Jeeva Ram and Arvind Kumar on 17.11.2022,
both informed him about the incident as it is and stated that the
Truck in question was being driven rashly and negligently at a very
high speed and the Truck driver could not apply brakes, due to
which, it ran over injured Dilip Kumar. The Investigating Officer,
thereafter inspected the site and prepared the crime details form,
emphasizing the specific site, where the accident took place, as
informed to him by Arvind Kumar, brother of injured Dilip Kumar.
3.2 Subsequently, on 25.11.2022, statement of Mangilal son of
Chhaganlal was taken. He was present at the bus stand and
narrated the incident as it is and also specified that the Truck was
being driven at a high speed and it ran over injured Dilip Kumar.
The Investigating Officer, on 17.11.2022 at around 06:30 PM,
prepared a detailed transcript with regard to what was visible in
the DVD, which was presented to him and gave the details
specifying therein that, while the injured was running, he crossed
a swift white car, and thereafter dashed with the Truck in question.
It has further been specified that Arvind Kumar has identified the
person i.e. the injured Dilip Kumar and the person running behind
him was the accused-Harish Kumar. The Investigating Officer,
thereafter on 18.11.2022, served a notice under Section 133 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 upon Ikbal Singh son of Sadhu Singh,
the owner of the vehicle, who informed that at the relevant time
the Truck was being driven by co-accused-Bittu Singh son of
Gurmel Singh.
3.3 Subsequently, on the same date, notice under Section 134 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was also served upon the accused-
Bittu Singh, who endorsed the fact that on the date of incident, he
was driving the Truck, which was owned by Shri Ikbal Singh. The
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (5 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
Truck in question was seized on 18.11.2022 itself. In the
meanwhile, the injured Dilip Kumar expired on 18.11.2022 and his
post-mortem was undertaken, which fortified the fact of the cause
of death being respiratory failure attributable to polytrauma. Prior
to all this, the Rojnamcha entry dated 14.11.2022, at around
09:53 AM was also prepared specifying that information was
received that a person was hit by a white swift car, and thereafter
came under the Truck bearing No. PB-29X-9824.
3.4 Furthermore, Rojnamcha entry with regard to referrals being
taken for the arrest of accused-Harish Kumar at Sanchore, District
Jalore, Jhab Bhimal Hyderabad, various places in Hyderabad and
at Mumbai were also placed on record. Ultimately, the accused-
Harish Kumar was nabbed on 03.03.2023, and based upon his
information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
the lathi was recovered and he also divulged his knowledge with
regard to the place of incident, based upon which, a site plan was
prepared. The accused-Harish Kumar was thereafter, produced
before the concerned Court, wherein on 04.03.2023, the learned
Trial Court made observations with regard to the lacuna in
investigation on the part of the Investigating Officer, while
observing that the CCTV footage clearly revealed that the
deceased-Dilip Kumar was hit by a white swift car and that further
footage of the Truck was not visible. It was observed by the
learned Trial Court that the CCTV footage was incomplete and the
Investigating Officer has not even tried to get the original CCTV
footage along with the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, nor had he taken the statements of the
witnesses appearing in the CCTV footage.
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (6 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
3.5 It was further observed that with a view to implicate the co-
accused-Bittu Singh, the Investigating Officer was trying to
influence the witnesses, which was clear from video and the
statements of witnesses Arvind Kumar and Mangilal, wherein
suggestions were given by the Investigating Officer. The learned
trial Court thus directed the Investigating Officer to place on
record the entire videography on a Pen-drive/CD and to personally
appear before the concerned Court. On the same day, the
Investigating Officer appeared and thereafter a separate order
was passed by the learned Trial Court directing him to collect the
original CCTV footage, the certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to investigate who was the driver of the
white swift car, and to conduct the investigation to gather the
statements of the witnesses i.e. the shopkeepers etc., at the site
in question.
3.6 The statements of witnesses namely Suresh Kumar,
Megharam & Naresh Kumar were thereafter recorded on
06.03.2023. The statement of Chetanram was recorded on
11.03.2023, statements of Jasraj and Shravan Kumar were
recorded 16.03.2023 and even, the details of the original CCTV
footage was prepared on 06.03.2023, along with the certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. All the
witnesses fortified that the deceased was hit slightly by a white
swift car, due to which, he lost his balance, and thereafter was hit
by the Truck, which ran over him. The details of the CCTV footage
also specified that after being hit lightly by the white swift car, the
deceased got imbalanced, and thereafter was run over by the
Truck. It was further clarified that the CCTV camera could not
capture the portion where the front wheel of the Truck was;
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (7 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
however, it was visible that after hitting, the Truck was reversed.
The Police, post investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the
accused-Harish Kumar for offences punishable under Sections
341, 323 & 304 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 and also against the co-
accused-Bittu Singh for offence punishable under Sections 279
and 304(A) IPC.
3.7 As regards the driver of white swift car, the investigation was
kept pending. The charge-sheet specified that after submitting all
the details, the same was forwarded to the Additional Director
Prosecution for seeking his approval, and post that, the charge-
sheet has been filed. After filing of the charge-sheet, the learned
Trial Court, by way of impugned order, proceeded to take
cognizance of offence against accused-Harish Kumar and refused
to issue summon or take cognizance against the co-accused-Bittu
Singh. It also directed initiation of proceedings and departmental
inquiry against the Investigating Officer-Roop Singh Inda, as also,
against the then Superintendent of Police, Jalore, the details of
which have been specified (supra). Being aggrieved against the
same, the present revision petition and the criminal appeal have
been filed.
Arguments on behalf of the counsels for both the sides, in
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1447/2023:-
4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the impugned order has been passed without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The impugned
order, in essence, visits the appellant with the evil consequences
and causes grave injustice, as the learned Trial Court has held the
appellant guilty without giving him any opportunity of hearing and
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (8 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
further, based on cursory observations, has tarnished the entire
service career of the appellant. He submitted that no case was
made out to show wilful negligence on part of the appellant as
provided under Rule 8(ix) of the Rules of 1995. He also submitted
that there was no question of violation of any of the provisions of
Section 4(2) of the Act of 1989, as the appellant had undertaken
the investigation as per law.
4.1 He further submitted that if there was any inadvertent
negligence, the same was rectified, post passing of the order
dated 04.03.2023 by the learned Trial Court itself, which is clear
from the perusal of the charge-sheet, wherein the investigation
has been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the
driver of the white swift car. He further submitted that there was
no question of the appellant wrongly impleading co-accused-Bittu
Singh, which will be clear from the perusal of the FIR itself,
wherein the Truck No. PB-29X-9824 and the fact of deceased
being hit by the Truck has been specified. He submitted that the
learned Trial Court, while deciding a case at the stage of
cognizance has dealt with the order as if it was deciding the trial
itself, and that too without there being any evidence on record. He
thus asserted that the order impugned is per se illegal and has
been passed while being oblivious of the statement of the
witnesses and rather smacks of mala fide on the part of the
Presiding Officer.
5. He further submitted that the impugned order could not have
been passed in the absence of any notice to the appellant. For that
proposition, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, in the case of "Niranjan Patnaiak v. Sashibhusan
Kar & Ors. ", reported in 1986 Cri LJ 991. He further places
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (9 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
the case of "Manish Dixit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan",
reported in 2001 Cri LJ 133, as also judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court, in S.B. Misc. Petition
No.2505/2024 (Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan).
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant-Jeeva Ram and State have rather supported that
learned counsel for the appellant, while emphasizing that the
impugned order has been passed in a very perverse manner and
in violation of settled principles of law. Learned counsel appearing
for co-accused-Bittu Singh in connected revision petition however,
supported the order impugned and asserted that the learned Trial
Court has rightly observed that the appellant had tried to show
the complicity of the co-accused-Bittu Singh with an ulterior
motive, just to ensure that the driver of the white swift car is
given a free passage and let off scot-free. He thus asserted that
the learned Trial Court, after giving detailed reasoning with regard
to delinquency on the part of the appellant, has rightly directed for
initiation of inquiry against the appellant and therefore, the
impugned order does not call for any interference.
Arguments on behalf of the counsels for both the sides, in
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1350/2023:-
7. Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, submitted that there was sufficient material available
on record to implicate the co-accused-Bittu Singh; however, the
learned Trial Court has refused to issue process against him
without any basis. He submitted that the written complaint, based
upon which, the FIR was lodged, the statements of witnesses
Jeeva Ram and Arvind Kumar, as well as the admission of Bittu
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (10 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
Singh himself that he was driving the Truck on the date of
incident, were sufficient to prove the complicity of co-accused-
Bittu Singh. He further submitted that after direction was issued
by the learned Trial Court on 04.03.2023, the statements of other
witnesses were recorded, be it Suresh Kumar, Megharam & Naresh
Kumar, etc., which also fortified the fact of deceased being run
over by the Truck and the Truck being driven rashly and
negligently. He thus submitted that at this stage of taking
cognizance, it was not open for the learned Trial Court to deal with
the probative value of the material available on record and it was
only required to see the prima-facie case at that stage.
7.1 He further submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed
the impugned order as if it was adjudicating the case finally, while
examining each and every evidence and documents minutely,
although it was only the stage of taking of cognizance. He,
therefore, prays that the refusal to take cognizance and issuance
of process against co-accused-Bittu Singh be quashed and set
aside and that Bittu Singh may be directed to face the trial by
summoning him, post taking of cognizance of offences punishable
under Sections 279 & 304(A) IPC.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Bittu Singh supported the order and stated that the learned Trial
Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and
given a positive finding with regard to the present respondent
being impleaded only with a view to save the skin of the driver of
the white Swift car. He submitted that the learned Trial Court has
passed a detailed 37-page order refusing to continue proceedings
against the present respondent from the offence in question, while
considering the entire evidence and giving reasons fortifying the
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (11 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
refusal to proceed against respondent. He also submitted that
there was no evidence to show that the respondent was driving
the vehicle rashly and negligently or at a very high speed. Rather,
the evidence on record shows that the deceased was hit by a
white Swift car, and thereafter, came under the Truck being driven
by the respondent. He asserted that there was no fault on the part
of the respondent, and therefore, the order in question has been
passed taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and
does not call for any interference.
Analysis & Reasoning:-
9. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the entire
material available on record.
9.1 Needless to emphasize that the learned trial Court, in para
27, gave a categorical finding with regard to gross negligence on
the part of appellant and in the same paragraph held that the
Superintendent of Police was also complicant, for the reason that
he did not exercise necessary supervisory duty while permitting
the appellant to file the charge-sheet against the co-accused-Bittu
Singh. It was further observed that in spite of passing of the order
dated 04.03.2023, the charge-sheet was filed, and it was also
observed that the Special Public Prosecutor has also not applied
his mind while giving his opinion for filing the charge-sheet
against the co-accused-Bittu Singh.
9.2 Not only this, the learned trial Court has further observed in
paras 29 & 30 that considering the conduct of the appellant, he is
guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 4(2)
clauses (d), (e), (f) & (g) of the Act of 1989, and further directed
for initiating inquiry against the appellant for wilful negligence as
per rule (8) of the Rules of 1995. It is thus clear that as far as the
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (12 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
fate of the alleged inquiry is concerned, the same has already
been decided by the learned Trial Court, inasmuch as, a finding
with regard to the wilful negligence under rule 8 of Rules 1995
and committing of crime under Section 4 of the Act of 1989 has
already been given. Thus, the outcome of the inquiry has already
been determined by the learned Trial Court itself, without giving
any opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
10. It is needless to emphasize that as far as the initiation of
inquiry against the Investigating Officer or passing of strictures is
concerned, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
"Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan", in (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.2505/2024), held as under:- (in paras 2, 3 & 6).
"2. In the sway of emotions, after observing several
procedural defects, errors and spurious course of
investigation, the learned trial Court made adverse
remarks/comments against the petitioner. An ex-parte
finding has been given about the character and conduct of
the petitioner with certain findings that wrongdoing was
committed by the officer with an oblique motive to give
undue benefit to the accused and consequently, his conduct
was deemed suspicious. At the same time, the learned trial
Judge recommended initiating proceedings against him
under Section 16 of the CCA (Classification, Control, and
Appeal) Rules, 1958, and a letter to this effect has been
sent to the Director General of Police with the further
direction to inform him about the progress and compliance
of the inquiry.
3. The principle of audi alteram partem is a foundational
tenet of Criminal Jurisprudence as per which no person
should be condemned without affording him an opportunity
of being heard. Here in this case, neither the petitioner was
summoned nor he was asked about the defects noticed by
the learned Judge and he was not given an opportunity to
furnish his explanation about the circumstances in which he
submitted the report before him. The law in this regard is
no more res-integra that adverse comment without hearing
should not be passed. More particularly, the fact finding
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
regarding conduct and on
(Downloaded character is 10:03:38
25/09/2025 at not sustainable
PM) without
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (13 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
taking note of stand/clarification/explanation of the other
party...................
6. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that
the remarks made by the learned Trial Court against the
petitioner are unsustainable in law."
11. In the case of, "Manish Dixit & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan", reported in 2001 Cri LJ 133, Hon'ble Apex Court,
held as under:- (paras 42, 43, 44 & 45).
"42. In the present case when the Public Prosecutor
failed to utilize the opportunity afforded by law to ask PW-
30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma) such questions as are
necessary for explanation of the matters referred to in
cross-examination, and when the trial judge also failed to
invoke the plenary powers to put such questions as he
should have put regarding the answers given in cross-
examination it was unfair, and we may say uncharitable to
a witness to shower him with judicial reprobations in the
judgment. Such disparaging remarks and the direction to
initiate departmental action against him could have very
serious impact on his official career.
43. Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly
cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by
the court against any person, particularly when such
remarks could ensue serious consequences on the future
career of the person concerned he should have been given
an opportunity of being heard in the matter in respect of
the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is
the basic requirement, for, otherwise the offending
remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural
justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to
PW-30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma). [(State of U.P. vs.
Mohd. Naim {1964 (2) SCR 363}, Ch. Jage Ram vs. Hans
Raj Midha {1972 (1) SCC 181}, R.K. Lakshmanan vs. A.K.
Srinivasan {1975(2) SCC 466}, Niranjan Patnaik vs.
Sashibhusan Kar {1986 (2) SCC 569}, State of Karnataka
vs. Registrar General {2000 (5) Scale 504}].
44. It is apposite in this context to extract the following
observations made by this Court in Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka v.
State of Assam {1996(6) SCC 234}:-
"We are surprised to find that in spite of the
above catena of decisions of this Court, the
learned Judge
(Uploadeddid not, before
on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58making
PM) the
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (14 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
remarks, give any opportunity to the
appellants, who were admittedly not parties to
the revision petition to defend themselves. It
cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks
the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious
aspersion on the appellants affecting their
character and reputation and may, ultimately
affect their career also. Condemnation of the
appellants without giving them an opportunity
of being heard was complete negation of the
fundamental principle of natural justice."
45. We therefore unhesitatingly allow the appeal filed
by PW-30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma) and order
expunction of all the disparaging remarks made against
him by the trial judge as well the High Court in the
judgments impugned before us. The direction to proceed
against him departmentally would also stand deleted."
12. In the case of, "Niranjan Patnaiak v. Sashibhusan Kar &
Ors.", reported in 1986 Cri LJ 991, Hon'ble Apex Court, held as
under:- (paras 23 & 24).
"23. It is, therefore, settled law that harsh or disparaging
remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities
whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law
unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an
integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. We hold
that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were
neither justified nor called for.
24. Having regard to the limited controversy in the appeal
to the High Court and the hearsay nature of evidence of the
appellant it was not at all necessary for the Appellate Judge to
have animadverted on the conduct of the appellant for the
purpose of allowing the appeal of the first respondent. Even
assuming that a serious evaluation of the evidence of the
appellant was really called for in the appeal the remarks of the
learned Appellate Judge should be in conformity with the
settled practice of courts to observe sobriety, moderation and
reserve. We need only remind that the higher the forum and
the greater the powers, the greater the need for restraint and
the more mellowed the reproach should be."
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (15 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
13. In the case of, "State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Babu
Chakraborthy", reported in 2004 (12) SCC 201, Hon'ble
Supreme Court, held as under:- (para 30).
"30. Replying to the arguments of Mr. Viswanathan, Mr.
Tapas Ray, learned senior counsel, submitted that the
operating portion of the impugned judgment clearly brings out
the perversity in the judgment. According to him, the
strictures that has been passed against the appellants by the
Division Bench of the High Court are wholly unjustified and
are liable to be expunged. He is right in his submission. In our
view, the High Court was not justified and correct in passing
observations/strictures against appellants 2 & 3 without
affording an opportunity of being heard, and it is in violation
of catena of pronouncements of this Court that harsh or
disparaging remarks are not to be made against the persons
and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration
before Courts of law unless it is really necessary for the
decision of the case. Likewise, the directions issued by the
High Court to the trial Court to lodge a complaint to the
Magistrate having jurisdiction for prosecuting appellants 2 and
3 for having committed and offence under Section 58 of the
Act read with Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code
is not warranted. The observations made by the High Court
are liable to be expunged and accordingly, we expunge the
same including the direction to lodge a complaint against
appellants 2 & 3."
14. In the case of, "Ashvini Vijay Shiriyannavar v. The State
of Karnataka & Ors.", in (Criminal Appeal No.1616/2023), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:-
"Leave granted.
The appellant is before this Court only insofar as the
adverse observations made against the appellant herein and
the ultimate direction issued in paragraphs 15(iii)&(iv) as
against the appellant herein.
Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant
as also learned counsel for the State, we note that the High
Court while disposing of criminal petition through its order
dated 04.02.2022 wherein the issue relating to cancellation
of bail granted to the accused had arisen, the High Court has
made certain observations with regard to the manner in
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
which the appellant who is a judicial officer has exercised her
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (16 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
discretion. It is in that light the High Court has made the
observations in paragraph -14 of the order and has arrived at
the conclusion that the Registry is required to obtain orders
from Hon'ble the Chief Justice and post the appellant-Judicial
Officer in the Judicial Academy for training. Such observation
and direction in our opinion is not justified.
This Court has been repeatedly indicating that such
orders should not be made without opportunity to the person
concerned whose career and esteem will be effected. In that
view of the matter without adverting to any other aspect, we
set aside the direction contained in paragraphs 15(iii) & (iv)
of the order dated 04.02.2022. The observations against the
appellant herein as contained in paragraph 14 is also
expunged.
In terms of the above, the appeal insofar as the
appellant herein is concerned, stands allowed."
15. Considering the law on the issue, it is clear that no
strictures, adverse comments, or remarks can be made, even
against the Investigating Officer, unless he has been given an
opportunity of hearing or unless he is present before the Court
concerned after issuance of notice. Thus, on this count alone,
while taking guidance from the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court also, the strictures and directions with
regard to holding an inquiry against the appellant cannot be
sustained.
16. Even otherwise, the very basis of the observation being that
the intention of the appellant was to somehow implicate the Truck
driver and safeguard the white swift car driver is noted to be
rejected as the perusal of the written FIR, itself will reveal that
there was averment with regard to the accident being caused by a
Truck having No. PB-29X-9824, and there was no reference to
accident being caused by a white swift car. Needles to emphasize,
that there was no allegation of the appellant manipulating the FIR
also, thus, the contents of the same cannot be placed under the
lens of doubt. Subsequently, the witnesses
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)Arvind Kumar, Jeeva
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (17 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
Ram and Mangilal have corroborated the deceased being hit by a
Truck, which that was being driven rashly and negligently. There
might have been some lacuna with regard to undertaking the
investigation concerning the issue as to, who was the driver of the
white swift car, collection of original CCTV date, certificate, etc.,
however, that negligence was addressed by way of order dated
04.03.2023. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has rectified
his negligence by taking the statements of witnesses i.e. Suresh
Kumar, Megharam, Naresh Kumar, Jasraj, Chetanaram and
Shravan Kumar and also getting the original CCTV footage as well
as the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
17. Rather, in the charge-sheet also, the investigation against
the driver of the white swift car has been kept pending for offence
under Section 173(8) CrPC. Thus, there was no occasion available
for the learned trial Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases,
to have made an observation with regard to the appellant being
guilty of offences punishable under Section 4(2) clauses (d), (e),
(f) & (g) of the Act of 1989, and initiation of inquiry under Rule
8(ix) of the Rules of 1995. Rather, there was nothing on record to
show wilful negligence on the part of the appellant. Negligence by
itself would not be sufficient and it has to be wilful negligence, and
only in that case the provisions of Rule (8) of Rules 1995 can be
brought into picture.
18. Furthermore, as far as the duties of the Public Servant
defined under Section 4(2) are concerned, a perusal of the same
will reveal that the appellant had recorded the statements of the
victim or witnesses, and also conducted the investigation within
the time fixed, prepared and translated any document or
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (18 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
electronic record and fulfilled the duty as specified under the Act
in question. The learned Trial Court, however, probably being
guided by the notion, as observed in order-sheet dated
04.03.2023, has proceeded to pass the impugned order, while
being totally oblivious of the fact that the direction issued on
04.03.2023 had been complied with by the appellant.
19. Further, as regards the entry in the Rojnamcha referred to by
the learned Trial Court, it will reveal that though there is reference
to an unidentified person being hit by a white Swift car, there was
a specific reference that the incident happened for the reason that
he came beneath the Truck bearing registration No. PB-29X-9824.
Thus, the hitting of the deceased by the white Swift car first and
thereafter his being hit by the Truck in question cannot be
countenanced at this stage. Rather, the audio and video also
clarify the fact of complicity of the driver of the white Swift car;
however, the ultimate accident occurred due to the deceased
being hit by the Truck in question, which was driven by co-accused
Bittu Singh. The learned Trial Court itself, without there being any
evidence, has tried to create grounds to justify the act of the co-
accused Bittu Singh, while observing that simply because he was
driving a bigger vehicle, therefore he was being impleaded by the
Investigating Officer, and further observing that the co-accused
Bittu Singh had immediately applied brakes to prevent the
accident, though no such evidence is available on record as of
now. The order in question has thus castigated the Investigating
Officer without even issuing notice to him and is, thus, reflective
of abhorrence on the part of the learned Trial Court towards the
Investigating Officer and its zeal to protect the co-accused Bittu
Singh without any justifiable basis.
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (19 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
20. Furthermore, the observation made by the learned Trial
Court with regard to the entire investigation conducted with the
premeditated mind to safeguard the driver of white swift car and
to implicate co-accused-Bittu Singh is totally perverse. Rather,
there was positive evidence available on record fortifying the fact
that the death of the deceased was caused when the Truck in
question, driven by co-accused-Bittu Singh, ran over him. The
witnesses in unison have made such statements and even in the
FIR the averment in this regard is clear. Learned Trial Court has
itself given finding in this regard in paragraph nos.21, 23 & 32 of
the impugned order.
21. Needless to emphasize that at this stage of taking
cognizance, the Court concerned is simply required to apply its
mind to find out whether the allegations, if proved, would
constitute an offence and not to delve into the merits or the
probative value of the evidence. The Court at this stage cannot
decide as to whether the evidence is sufficient to convict the
accused, as that stage is yet to come and can be decided only at
the stage of conclusion of trial and not at the stage of taking
cognizance or at the stage of framing of the charge.
22. Furthermore, the postmortem report also fortifies this fact
that prima-facie the injuries would have occurred if a heavy
vehicle had run over the deceased. Not only this, the emphasis
given by the learned Trial Court with the regard to the deceased
being hit by the white swift car first, and thereafter being run over
by the Truck, does not make much difference, as ultimately the
death was caused by being run over by the Truck in question.
Whether the Truck was being driven rashly or negligently is a
matter of evidence, and it was not at all justified on the part of
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (20 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
the learned Trial Court to delve into that part and give a finding
that the Truck was being driven at a speed commensurate with the
speed of all vehicles at the site in question. The evidence available
on record is conspicuously silent to support any such observation
as made by the learned Trial Court.
23. Rather, the prima-facie evidence fortified the fact that the
Truck was being driven at a very high speed, rashly and
negligently, due to which, it run over the deceased Dilip Kumar.
The coverage of the CCTV footage not being wide enough to cover
The incident, where the deceased was run over by Truck would not
make much difference at this stage, as the same is an issue to be
decided, at the time of trial and not at the stage of taking of
cognizance, where the Court is to see prima-facie evidence only
and not delve into the niceties of the evidence or the probative
value of the material available on record. Thus, the learned Trial
Court has erred in law, while observing that co-accused-Bittu
Singh was wrongly been implicated and not proceeding against
him for the offence in question.
24. Rather, the written complaint, as well as the statements of
Jeeva Ram, Arvind Kumar & Mangilal, who were initially examined,
also fortified the fact of the deceased being run over by the Truck
and the Truck being driven by the co-accused-Bittu Singh. This,
coupled with the reply to the notice under Sections 133 and 134 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 leaves no iota of doubt that the Truck
at the relevant time was being driven by the co-accused-Bittu
Singh. He himself, in reply to the notice under Section 134,
admitted the fact of the incident occurring and he was driving the
Truck. The statements of other witnesses i.e. Suresh Kumar,
Megharam, Naresh Kumar, Chetanaram, Jashraj & Sarwan Kumar,
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (21 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
who all are not related witnesses but were present at the bus-
stand, have also fortified the fact of the deceased being run over
by the Truck. Thus, the observation made by the learned Trial
Court with regard to the Investigating Officer somehow trying to
implicate the Truck driver falsely is without any basis and thus, the
order giving him clean chit at this stage, cannot be sustained
whatsoever.
25. As an upshot of the above discussion, the order dated
06.07.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Jalore, in Sessions Case
No.33/2023 (State of Rajasthan v. Harish & Anr.) is quashed and
set aside to the extent of the observations made in paras 35, 36 &
37 of the order as well as the prior findings with regard to the
wilful negligence and complicity of the Investigating Officer and
Superintendent of Police concerned. It is directed that no inquiry
shall be undertaken against the appellant as well as against the
Superintendent of Police concerned and the Director General of
Police is directed to disregard the recommendations made by the
learned Trial Court regarding initiation of proceedings for
undertaking the inquiry under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1995 or
initiation of proceedings under Section 4 of the Act of 1989
against the appellant.
25.1 The order of the learned Trial Court refusing to take
cognizance and issuing summons for offences punishable under
Sections 279 & 304(A) IPC against co-accused-Bittu Singh is also
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned
Trial Court with directions to pass a fresh order as per law and
after considering the observations made in the present order. The
order of the learned Trial Court with regard to taking cognizance of
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40784] (22 of 22) [CRLR-1350/2023]
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 304 of the IPC &
Sections 3(2)(v)(va) of the Act of 1989, and issuing summons to
accused Harish Kumar is not interfered with and is upheld to that
extent.
26. The present Criminal Revision Petition as well as Criminal
Appeal are disposed of, accordingly.
27. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
28. The record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
devrajP/-
(Uploaded on 25/09/2025 at 06:56:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
