Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Ramawatar, S/o. Late Sh. Sita Ram Jangid - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2498 Of 2011
Decided On : 27-02-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chakrawarti Singh Rathore.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan.
Point of Law: Criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make orders as may be necessary for ends of justice.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 200 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 457, 380, 201 - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 - Section 203 - Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act - Section 3 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Illegally trespassed - Misappropriated entire furniture - Aggrieved from order whereby order emanating from F.I.R. passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu was maintained – No defence except terming letter as forged was raised by complainant.
Finding of the Court:
It is settled proposition of law that where allegations made in report or complaint, even if they are taken as true at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence and thereafter evidence collected in support of same also do not disclose commission of any offence to make out a case against accused then proceeding can be quashed by High Court – There was no sufficient ground to proceed after submission of closure report/FR by police hence order of cognizance and further confirmation order, by Courts below were without any basis thus a strong case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash cognizance order is made out in favour of petitioner - Order for taking cognizance in FR & subsequent protest petition emanating from FIR is hereby quashed and set aside.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The present misc. petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed aggrieved from the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal revision petition No.132/2010 (75/2008) whereby the order dated 02.08.2006 negating F.R. No. 17/2004 emanating from F.I.R. No.400/2003 P.S. Kotwali, District Churu, taking cognizance of offence under Sections 457, 380, 201 IPC and Section 203 Rajasthan Municipalities Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu was maintained.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted the facts in nutshell that an F.I.R. was registered by the Executive Officer of the Municipality, Churu alleging that on 15.12.2003 building of Octroi post No.5 was illegally trespassed and demolished by the present petitioner and also misappropriated entire furniture along with other materials. On the basis of this F.I.R., investigation was carried out and a Final Report on the ground of dispute of civil nature was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Churu who after examination of complainant-Ram Kumar under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance and revision against this cognizance order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitted that the Police after investigation have filed closure report wherein, it was stated that the aforesaid land on which this Octroi check post was constructed belongs to Bhagirath Prasad, who later transferred the same to Mr. R.K. Jain and thereafter who transferred the land to 21 other persons. This report further indicates that ultimately it was present petitioner who purchased this land on 15.01.2003 from Pawan Kumar through a registered sale deed. It was also found during investigation that before abolition of Octroi, a notice was given to Municipality, Churu regarding illegal construction & possession of Octroi post on the land which was owned by previous titleholder of the present petitioner and in pursuant to the notice, Municipality has admitted tenancy and started to pay rent to the owner of the land. These documents are available on record but the complainant had denied the same on the ground that these were forged documents. He further submitted that the chain of source is established by the present petitioner during investigation but learned trial Court had overlooked the result of the investigation. He further submitted that no criminal act was made out but without examining the material collected during investigation, learned trial Court had taken cognizance thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. He further submitted that no record indicating ownership of Municipality, Churu was produced by the complainant during the investigation or before the trial Court but assuming the oral statement to be gospel truth, the cognizance order was passed. He would further submitted that such approach is abuse of process of law, hence, the petitioner is entitled to seek protection from this Hon’ble Court.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that after submission of final report, additional evidence was produced before the trial Court and on the basis of additional evidence, order of cognizance was passed which is self explanatory. He also submitted that all the issues raised herein are subject matter of evidence and same can be decided on merits during trial and the parties may be directed to face the trial. He would submitted that the documents submitted by the Respondent proved that the check post was constructed by the Municipality, Churu.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the original record which was summoned by this Court in the present petition, as the entire proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2011.
6. A perusal of F.I.R. indicates that Mr. Ram Kumar, had filed a written complaint for illegal trespassing, damaging gove
