HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8244/2018

1.

Khaimsingh S/o Shri Girdhari Singh B/c Rajput, Aged

About 40 Years, R/o Pehal, Tehsil Mandawar, District

Alwar, Presently Working As Sub Inspector, Office Of

Additional Director General, Railway, Jaipur, Raj.

2.

Harendra Singh S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh B/c Gurjar,

Aged About 32 Years, R/o Dhau Paysa, Atalband Mandi,

Bharatpur, Presently Working As Constable G.r.p. Police

Station Gangapur City, District Karauli.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2.

Nemi @ Naresh S/o Late Shri Brajbihari Lal B/c Vaishya,

R/o B-24, Shopping Centre, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur,

Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Arvind Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sher Singh Mahla PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

-/Order/-

06/03/2019

The present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur whereby in criminal complaint

filed by the respondent no.2, the said court has taken cognizance

of offences under Sections 384/511 and 120B IPC against the

petitioners. It is further prayed that the order dated 10.12.2018

passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocity

Cases, Bharatpur in revision petition preferred by the petitioner

whereby order of cognizance was affirmed, be also set aside.

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-8244/2018]

It has come in preliminary evidence that the petitioner

no.1 had taken Rs.50,000/- as a loan from the complainant /

respondent no.2. It is case of the complainant that when he

demanded loan amount, the petitioner no.1 in order to put the

complainant in fear, engineered false case against the complainant

respondent no.2 bearing No.86/2017 dated 7.8.2017 for offences

under Sections 370(5), 374 IPC read with Section 75, 79 of

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The petitioner no.1 himself became the investigating

officer of the above said FIR. There was apparently conflict of

interest as petitioner who had to pay the loan amount was

investigating the case against the complainant which was

registered on basis of complaint made by police officer. The

complainant made a grievance that he has been put to fear by

registering a case to forgo his demand for return of the loan

amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

the offence under Section 384 IPC prescribes maximum sentence

of three years. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended

that since cognizance of offence has been taken qua offence under

Section 384 read with Section 511 IPC, the petitioners can only be

sentenced to half of the sentence maximum of which will come to

one year and six months, in case prosecution case is proved

against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the

Schedule attached to Code of Criminal Procedure which give

classification of offences, has submitted that the offences for

which petitioners are to be tried are bailable.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-8244/2018]

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

this Court is of the view that the disputed questions of fact cannot

be determined in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Furthermore, the order of cognizance has been upheld by the

revisional court below.

Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with

liberty to the petitioners to raise all arguments available to them

before the trial court at appropriate stage.

However, considering that since Section 511 IPC has

been invoked and offences qua which cognizance has been taken,

have become bailable, the trial court is directed to accept the bail

bonds / surety bonds of the petitioners to its satisfaction upon

appearance of the petitioners on the next date fixed before it.