Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Narendra Mohan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 902 / 2010
Narendra Mohan Sharma s/o Late Sh. Bhanwar Gopal Sharma 51
years, by caste Brahman, r/o A-14, Govind Nagar, Near Heerapura
Power House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Presently posted as R.P.S.,
Dy.Commandant, P.T.S.Kishangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.A.Khan, Mr.G.S.Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anil Yadav PP for the State.
Mr.Satish Pachori, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 11/01/2017
1. The matter comes up on an application filed by the intervenor for vacation of the ex-parte stay order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the court.
2. The applicant in the impugned order dated 20.07.2011 was permitted to intervene in the matter and to assist the learned Public Prosecutor. He was not permitted to move an application for vacation of the stay order. Therefore, the application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
3. With consent of the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor, this petition is heard on merits at the stage of (2 of 3) [CRLMP-902/2010] admission.
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard and orders have been passed for initiating a departmental enquiry against him. It is also contended that the court below has proposed action against the present petitioner on the count that the FIR was quashed only against respondents No.1 and 2 by the Apex Court and it was further directed that quashing of the FIR will not have any bearing on the FIR, insofar as the other accused are concerned. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the operative portion of the order, the High Court observed that FIR No.241/2005 registered at Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur against the petitioners and the L.A.O. deserves to be quashed and the same was accordingly quashed.
5. It is also contended that the aforesaid order of the High Court is dated 24.02.2006 and the petitioner submitted the final report on 31.03.2006. The order passed by the Apex Court is dated 30.01.2009, and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have based his submission of final report on the basis of the Apex Court's order. It is further contended that in the present case even after re-investigation, the police has submitted final report in the matter against all the accused.
6. Counsel for the complainant, who was permitted to intervene in the matter states that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the FIR has not been quashed as a whole and still he submitted final report basing his decision on the order of the High Court. It is also contended that though the police after (3 of 3) [CRLMP-902/2010] investigation has submitted final report, but that is also under challenge before the court. It is further contended that after the order passed by the Apex Court, no further investigation has taken place.
7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
8. The only point, which requires consideration is as to whether the court below was right in directing the Inspector General of Police, Jaipur to initiate action against the present petitioner and to report the same to the court within three months.
9. To my mind, the court below has erred in passing the impugned order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order of the Apex Court was not before the petitioner, as the same was passed on 30.01.2009, much after the submission of the final report on 31.03.2006.
10. Consequently, the present misc.petition is allowed. The impugned order, to the extent it makes a direction to the Inspector General of Police for initiating action against the present petitioner is hereby quashed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J. Skant/-