Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajni Lodha vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 November, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3227/2018
1. Smt. Rajni Lodha W/o Late Prakash Lodha, Aged About 45
Years, Near Vitthalnath Temple, Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand
2. Mahaveer Bafna S/o Shri Sohanlal Bafna, Aged About 50
Years, Shriji Vihar, Bhilwara Road, Kankroli, District
Rajasamand
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Nawal Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, B/c Surana, R/o
Kothariya, Police Station Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3329/2018
Smt. Rajni Lodha W/o Lt. Prakash Lodha, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Near Vitthalnath Temple, Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3445/2018
Smt. Rajni Lodha W/o Late Sh. Prakash Chandra Lodha, Aged
About 45 Years, B/c Lodha, R/o Near Vitthalnath Temple,
Gopalpura, Nathdwara, Police Station Nathdwara, Dist.
Rajsamand
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Nawal Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh Surana, R/o
Kothariya, Nathdwara, Police Station Nathdwara, Dist.
Rajsamand
2. Subhash S/o Sh. Shanker Lal Samota, R/o Bus Stand,
Nathdwara, Police Station Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand.
3. Amit S/o Sh. Ashok Laxmi Chand Soni, R/o A/102,
(2 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018]
Mahaveer Dharshan, Jakariya Road, Malad Mumbai
(Maharashtra)
4. Fateh Singh S/o Sh. Bheru Singh Chundawat, R/o
Parawal, Police Station Khamnor, Dist. Rajsamand.
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through The S.h.o. Police Station
Kelwa, Dist. Rajsamand.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3217/2018
Rajni Lodha S/o Late Prakash Lodha, Aged About 45 Years,
Near Vitthalnath Temple, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Kankroli, District
Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor
Mr. Manish Tak
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 01/11/2018
1. Since all these misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C., arise out of the common facts, therefore, the same have heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C., have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(3 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018] [1]-CRLMP No.3277/2018 "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR No.162/2018 registered at Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand as well as entire proceedings as initiated thereunder against the petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Any other appropriate order which this Hon`ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." [2]-CRLMP No.3329/2018
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition filed by the petitioner/complainant may kindly be allowed and the respondents - State of Rajasthan as well as authorities of Police Administration of District Rajsamand may kindly be directed to conduct fair and impartial investigation as well as to take necessary serious action in the matter including arrest of all the named accused persons in connection with FIR No.253 dated 18.6.2018 registered at Police Station, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand or in alternate, the investigation of the matter may kindly be handed-over to a higher police official not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand or to an independent agency like CID (CB)/CBI with a direction to conduct fair and impartial investigation in the matter forthwith.
Any other appropriate order which this Hon`ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."[3]-CRLMP No.3277/2018
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 16.8.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Revision No.68/2018 titled as "Rajni Lodha Vs. Nawal Singh & Ors." As well as order dated 08.5.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal (4 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018] Complaint Case No.04/2015 titled as "S.H.O. Police Station Kelwa Vs. Rajni Lodha & Ors" may kindly be quashed and set aside and the possession of the disputed mining lease may kindly be ordered to be handed over to the petitioner/party no.1(1) forthwith.
Any other appropriate order which this Hon`ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."[4]-CRLMP No.3217/2018
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition filed by the petitioner/complainant may kindly be allowed and the respondents - State of Rajasthan as well as authorities of Police Administration of District Rajsamand may kindly be directed to conduct fair and impartial investigation as well as to take necessary serious action in the matter including arrest of all the named accused persons in connection with FIR No.222 dated 24.07.2018 registered at Police Station, Kankroli, District Rajsamand or in alternate, the investigation of the matter may kindly be handed-over to a higher police official not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand or to an independent agency like CID (CB)/CBI with a direction to conduct fair and impartial investigation in the matter forthwith.
Any other appropriate order which this Hon`ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. The facts of the case in brief are that complainant Naval Singh filed a complaint against the petitioners before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. It was stated that the complainant and Mahaveer Bafna were acquainted to each other. Mahaveer Bafna constituted one partnership firm in the name of "Parasnath Marble" for operating (5 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018] mining lease of Smt. Rajni Lodha in partnership situated near Jhanjhar, bearing M.L. No.900/95 sanctioned by the Mining Engineer, Mines & Geology Department, Division-I, Rajsamand. In the same partnership firm, Mahaveer Bafna and one Subhash Samota became partners. With the consent of Mahaveer Bafna and complainant Naval Singh, operation of said mining lease was being carried by Subhash Samota and accounts of firm were being taken care by all the three partners. In the firm of three partners, Smt. Rajni Lodha on the saying of Mahaveer Bafna decided to transfer her share and make her known Amit Soni as partner of the firm, upon which, Nawal Singh Surana and Subhash Samota gave their consent and thereafter out of 55% share of Smt. Rajni Lodha, Mahaveer Bafna granted 25% share in favour of Amit Soni and in this regard an amended partnership-deed was duly executed. After making Amit Soni as partner in the said firm and death of husband of Smt. Rajni Lodha, namely, Shri Prakash, when Mahaveer Bafna was asked to operate the mining lease, due to which differences arose between the partners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits due to dispute in mining operation between the partners, two FIRs were lodged by Smt. Rajni Lodha bearing (1) FIR No.253 dated 18.6.2018 registered at Police Station, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467 & 468 IPC and (2) FIR No.222 dated 24.07.2018 registered at Police Station, Kankroli, District Rajsamand for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120-B IPC and in the two petitions she seeks relief for conducting fair and impartial investigation as well as to take necessary serious action in the matter including (6 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018] arrest of all the named accused persons. Similarly, Smt. Rajni Lodha and Mahaveer Bafna also faced FIR No.162/2018 registered at Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand for the offence under Sections 410, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
5. Misc. Petition No.3227/2018, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR impugned and submits that it was only a dispute in partnership, for which FIR has been lodged but it is basically a dispute between the partners.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is going on.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioner submits a representation alongwith all the necessary documents before the concerned investigating authority within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the investigation.
9. In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned Public Prosecutor, Misc. Petition No.3227/2018 petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioner submits a representation alongwith all the necessary documents before it within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor.
(7 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018] 10. In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be
appropriate to grant protection from arrest to the petitioner as it will be a waste of energy and resources of the Police Department to run after the accused to complete the related investigation and without protection it would also cause un-necessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic opportunity of explaining his case before the Investigating Authority without fear of arrest. The Investigating Officer, however, shall have the liberty of custodial interrogation after giving 15 days' notice before arrest if required. In the interest of justice and the facts and circumstances noted by this Court, the limited protection is justified. Therefore, if during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be given 15 days' notice before making such arrest. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. Misc. Petition No.3329/2018 & 3217/2018
11. The petitioner has preferred these misc. petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for issuing direction for fair investigation in FIR No.253/2018 of P.S. Nathdwara, District Rajsamand and FIR No.222/2018 P.S. Kankroli, District Rajsamand.
12. In Manoj Kumaria Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2014(3) Raj.CriC 965, Narayan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2013(1) Cri.L.R.264 and Aziza Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2012(1) RLW 835, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a (8 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018] fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of justice and for establishing rule of law.
13. In Shyam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2015(3) Cri.L.R. 1375 and Gopal Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2015(4) Cri.L.R. 1617 also the petitioner therein was permitted to submit a representation before the investigating officer and the investigating officer was directed to consider the documents before forming any opinion.
14. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that fair and transparent investigation shall be made, and in case the petitioner submits a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand within a period of 10 days from today, then the same shall be considered at the time of investigation.
15. In light of the aforesaid precedent law as well as the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor, Misc. Petition Nos. 3329/2018 & 3217/2018 are disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand to consider the representation alongwith all the relevant documents, if submitted by the petitioner within a period of 10 days from today, and conduct fair investigation, strictly in accordance with law. Further, If other party also wishes to make a representation, they shall be at liberty to do so.
16. Misc. Petition No.3445/2018 is against order dated 16.8.2018 and 08.5.2018 whereby proceedings of Section 145 (9 of 9) [CRLMP-3227/2018] Cr. P.C., have been brought to an end at the instance of petitioner herself as counsel for the petitioner made a limited argument that valid partnership which has become a ground for implementation of the judgment is a issue of dispute and cannot be resolved in the proceedings under Section 147 Cr. P.C. Hence, counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the same. The misc. petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take up the issue before appropriate civil court in next 20 days and for 20 days from today, status quo regarding the mining lease in-question shall be maintained.
(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Sanjay Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)