SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.
Naveen Kumar Rampal, Son of Shri Kishori Lal Rampal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 766 Of 2004
Decided On : 24-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rinesh Gupta assisted by Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandhu, Mr. Gaurav Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Atul Sharma, P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong and cogent evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC.

Headnote:

Criminal Revision Petition - Summoning under Section 319 CrPC - Sections 409, 467, 468 & 471 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 319 CrPC and its interpretation in light of the evidence presented. It highlighted the principles established in the cases of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, emphasizing the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC. The court found that the evidence presented did not warrant summoning the petitioner under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that the petitioner was involved in forging bank documents and depositing a sum of money, leading to the summoning of the petitioner under Sections 409, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented did not warrant summoning the petitioner under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to summon the petitioner under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong and cogent evidence to exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC, as established in the cases of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan.

Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the order summoning the petitioner was quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Ajmer (for brevity “the learned trial Court”) in Criminal Case No.275/2004 whereby, while allowing an application filed under Section 319 CrPC by the prosecution, cognizance against the petitioner has been taken under Sections 409, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 120-B IPC and has been summoned through arrest warrant.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. Manna Devi submitted a written complaint in the learned trial Court stating therein that she, alongwith her two sons namely Laxman Chand and Mahendra Kumar had gone to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) on 12.10.2002 for opening of the bank accounts in her sons’ name and handed over a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- each in the bank accounts in her sons’ name. It was further stated that after completion of paper formalities, the original passbooks were handed over by the co-accused Bhanwar Lal at her home. It was alleged that when she went to withdraw the amount, it transpired that the passbooks were forged and no bank accounts in the names of her sons were ever opened. The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC whereupon, an FIR No.124/2003 came to be registered. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the co-accused- Bhanwar Lal for offence under Sections 406, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. During the course of his trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning the petitioner, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 10.08.2004, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence on record to show his involvement in the offence alleged. He submits that the learned trial Court has passed the order relying upon the statements of Smt. Manna Devi (PW-8), Mahendra Kumar (PW-09) & Laxman Chand (PW-10); however, they have levelled no allegations against him during their deposition. Relying upon a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab & Ors. and other connected appeals: (2014) 3 SCC 92, learned counsel would submit that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence is available against a person proposed to be proceeded with which is lacking in the instant case. He, therefore, prays that the criminal revision petition be allowed and the order dated 10.08.2004 be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. A perusal of the order dated 10.08.2004 reveals that relying primarily upon the deposition of Smt. Manna Devi, S/Shri Laxman & Mahendra, cognizance against the petitioner has been taken under Section 319 CrPC. This Court has scanned the examinationin- chief of all these three witnesses and does not find a whisper of allegation against the petitioner either of breach of trust or of forgery. Smt. Manna Devi has stated in her deposition that she had handed over a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Bank Manager, i.e, the petitioner in presence of other staff of the bank, who, in turn, handed over the same to the co-accused-Bhanwar Lal then and there. Except this averment, there is no averment qua the present petitioner in her deposition. Her son-Mahendra Kumar (PW-9) has made the similar statement with slight modification that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was handed over by him to the Bank Manager, who instantly handed over the same to the co-accused-Bhanwar Lal. Another son of the complainant Shri Laxman Chand has stated as PW-10 that he and his brother had given a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner and Bhanwar Lal, they obtained their signatures for opening the Bank accounts and also assured to hand over the passbooks at their res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top