Advocates:
['NISHANT BORA', '', 'VIJAY CHOUDHARY', 'ARPIT MEHTA', 'ARUN KUMAR', 'PP', 'BHARAT SHRIMALI', 'GOPA RAM']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6805/2019

1.

Sumitra Devi W/o Govind Singh, Aged About 35 Years, By

Caste Rajput, R/o Baori Ki Guaar, Tehsil Bheem, District

Rajsamand.

2.

Govind Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 38 Years, By

Caste Rajput, R/o Baori Ki Guaar, Tehsil Bheem, District

Rajsamand.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Geeta Devi W/o Kishan Singh, By Caste Rawat, R/o

Hamela Ki Ver, Dhadhaala, Tehsil Bheem , District

Rajsamand.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Nishant Bora

For Respondent(s)

For Complainant(s)

:

:

Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC

Mr. Dashrath Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

03/03/2021

The instant Misc. Petition under Section 482 cr.P.C. has been

filed by the petitioners for seeking quashing of the FIR

No.560/2019 registered at the Police Station Bheem, Rajsamand

for the offences under Sections 307, 365, 323 and 342 IPC.

Learned counsel Shri Nishant Bora, representing the

petitioners submits that ex facie the FIR No.560/2019 has been

registered as counter blast to the FIR No.559/2019 lodged by

Govind Singh (petitioner No.2) against Suresh Singh (the injured

of the present case). He urges that Suresh Singh indulged in

misbehavior and molestation with the minor niece of Govind Singh

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-6805/2019]

whereupon, the FIR No.559/2019 came to be registered against

him for the offences under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC and

Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. Suresh Singh was apprehended by

the people of the locality in the process while he was molesting

the child and the people who caught hold of him, roughed up

Suresh Singh by fist and kick blows. He submits that ex facie the

ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 365

IPC are not made out from the allegations levelled in the FIR, the

injury report of the Suresh Singh and the medical opinion

collected by the Investigating Officer. He thus urges that these

offences deserve to be deleted from the array of offences being

applied by the Investigating Officer against the accused-

petitioners.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced by the petitioners counsel. Learned Public

Prosecutor has presented the case diary for the Court’s perusal.

The medical report of Suresh Singh prepared by the Medical Jurist,

PHC, Bheem was perused, as per which the injured was found

having swelling on the forehead and the face. Two complaints of

pain on the thoracic region and the abdomen. Non-contrast head

CT (NCCT) of the head was undertaken, as per which, no internal

damage was seen underneath the external head injury. As per the

ultra sound analysis of the abdominal area, no free fluid was seen

in the peritoneal cavity. All the three injuries were opined to be

simple in nature. It is alleged that subsequently, the injured was

referred to the higher center because he was complaining of

hearing trouble and a doubt has been expressed that hearing of

the complainant may have been compromised. Be that as it may.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-6805/2019]

The petitioners do have an arguable case regarding necessary

ingredients of the offences under Sections 365 and 307 of the IPC

not being made out.

In this background, the Investigating Officer is directed to

seek opinion from a Medical Board and so also legal opinion from

the ADP concerned before proceeding to file charge sheet in the

case. Needless to say that in case charge sheet with adverse

conclusion is filed against the petitioners, they shall be at liberty

to challenge the same as per law.

With the above observations, the Misc. Petition is disposed

of. The stay application is also rejected.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

137-Mamta/-