Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Sanjay Tanwar - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 4529 & 4530 of 2017
Decided On : 17-07-2018
CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE - QUASHING OF FIR - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - CRIMINAL MISC. PETITIONS - DIRECTIONS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER FOR ABUSING THE PROCESS OF COURT - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REGARDING CUSTODIAL VIOLENCE - APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER FOR FILING FALSE COMPLAINT - DISMISSAL OF STAY PETITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed criminal misc. petitions seeking quashing of FIR alleging custodial violence by police officials. Petitioners claimed that one of them was brutally assaulted by police while submitting a representation as per court order. Court directed investigation by CBI, which found allegations of custodial violence to be false. Petitioners argued that dispute was civil in nature and FIR was filed with criminal intent. Respondent argued that prima facie case was made out and petitioners were attempting to abuse the process of court.
Finding of the Court:
Court found that prima facie case of cheating and abduction was made out from allegations in FIR. Police investigation suggested evidence against petitioners. Court held that petitioners' attempt to abuse the process of court by making false allegations of custodial violence was an attempt to mislead the court. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the duty of courts to prevent abuse of legal system.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR should be quashed due to lack of prima facie case and civil nature of the dispute? 2. Whether the petitioners abused the process of court by making false allegations of custodial violence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations in the FIR constituted a prima facie case of cheating and abduction, and that the police investigation had collected evidence suggesting the petitioners' involvement. Therefore, quashing the FIR was not warranted. 2. The court found that the petitioners had attempted to abuse the process of court by making false allegations of custodial violence in order to mislead the court. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the duty of courts to prevent abuse of the legal system.
Final Decision: Both criminal misc. petitions were dismissed. The complaint filed by the petitioner regarding custodial violence was also dismissed. The police were directed to take appropriate action against the petitioner for filing a false complaint regarding custodial violence. The stay petitions were also dismissed.
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Both these criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioners essentially with the prayer for quashing of FIR No.391/2017 of Police Station, Ambamata, District Udaipur and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
2. It appears that the petitioners had earlier preferred S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition Nos. 3653/2017 and 3654/2017 for quashing of the impugned FIR, however, the said criminal misc. petitions were disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 30.10.2017 with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioners submit a representation along with all the necessary documents before it within a period of fifteen days, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law.
3. This Court further observed that if during investigation, the concerned authority needs to arrest the petitioners, then the petitioners shall be given 15 days' notice before making such arrest. This Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again in case need arises.
4. Now the petitioners have preferred these criminal misc. petitions with a specific assertion that one of the petitioners viz. Abhimanyu Tanwar approached the Investigating Officer with a representation as per the direction given by this Court in the above referred misc. petitions, however, at that time the respondent No.3 - S.H.O., Police Station, Ambamata, Udaipur along with other police official, brutally assaulted the petitioner - Abhimanyu Tanwar with belt and sticks. It is contended that in relation to the said beating, when the petitioner - Abhimanyu Tanwar approached the higher police officers complaining about respondent No.3, the said complaint has not been even properly considered.
5. Taking into consideration the said assertion of the petitioners, this Court while issuing notices in the present criminal misc. petitions has passed the following order:
"19/12/2017
Issue notice of misc. petition as well as stay petition to the respondents.
Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of State. Hence, notice returnable on 6.1.2018 be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3.
The respondent No.3 being the S.H.O. P.S. Ambamata, District Udaipur shall remain present in the Court to furnish an explanation as to in what manner, the representation submitted by the petitioners in light of the earlier order passed by this Court was considered.
Till next date, all further proceedings of the impugned F.I.R. No.391/2017 registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur shall remain stayed.
A copy of this order be placed in both the files."
6. The matter was thereafter taken up on 08.01.2018 and on that date, the explanation submitted by respondent No.3 was taken on record and the next date was fixed as 17.01.2018. It appears that on 17.01.2018, the petitioner - Abhimanyu Tanwar was present in Court and categorically stated about use of third degree method by the Investigating Officer when he appeared before him in pursuance of the direction given by this Court on 30.10.2017. In support of the said contention, petitioner - Abhimanyu Tanwar produced an injury report and some photographs.
7. Taking into consideration the said statement of petitioner - Abhimanyu Tanwar, this Court on 17.01.2018 directed the Public Prosecutor to keep the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur and the respondent No.3 present in the Court on the next date.
8. The matter was again taken up on 23.01.2018, however, on that date the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur was not present on medical ground and Court has observed that after being allegedly assaulted at the Police Station, Ambamata on 11.11.2017, the petitioner - Abhimanyu Tanwar moved repeated applications to the I.G.,Udaipur, S.P. Udaipur and Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Udaipur with a request to take action against the respondent No.3, however, the I.G., Udaipur and S.P., Udaipur did not take any action
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
