Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aniruddh Texchem Pvt. Ltd vs State & Anr on 26 August, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.) (CRLMP) NO.961 of 2016 Aniruddh Texchem Pvt. Limited through its director Manoj Kamliya, C-69, Textile Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara.
...Petitioner VERSUS
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Chairman Process Limited through its director Mukesh Agarwal S/o Shri Madan Lal Agarwal, Resident of A-48, 49, 54, 55 RIICO Growth Centre, Hameergarh, District Bhilwara.
...Respondents
Date of Order :: 26.8.2016
HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.
Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the Appellant / Petitioner. Mr. V.S.Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor for the State.
-----
By the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioner has challenged FIR No.37/2016 registered at Police Station Hameergargh, District Bhilwara.
In the impugned FIR, petitioner-company is charged for offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC by the respondent-complainant.
Precisely, petitioner has submitted in the petition that FIR is not disclosing commission of cognizable offence therefore the same merits annulment.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report dated 31.07.2016 addressed to him by the S.H.O. Police Station Hameergarh, District Bhilwara. As per factual report, no incriminating evidence is found against petitioner-company for constituting offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC. The recitals contained in the factual report dated 31.07.2016, in vernacular, read as under :-
^^nksjkus vuqla/kku c;ku izkFkhZ Jh eqds'k dqekj xokg eukst dqekj] Jh ukjk;.k yky ds fy; x;sA izkFkhZ ds esustj eukst dqekj xqIrk }kjk is'k fjdkMZ vfu:/k VSDlVkbZy ls izkIr xzs diMk o ckn izkslsflax ¼fQfu'k diMk½ dk tksc pktZ dks 'kkfey i=koyh fd;k x;kA vuqla/kku ls ;g ik;k dh izkFkhZ ds izkslsl gkml ij foi{khx.kksa }kjk viuk xzs diMk izkslsl ¼fQfu'k½ djokdj Hkqxrku fn;k ftldk fQfu'kadx pktZ 95 yk[k 10 gtkj 487 : gqvk ftlesa ls vkjksihx.k }kjk 77 yk[k 49 gtkj 707 :i;s izkFkhZ dks ns fn;s o izkslsflax pktZ iSBs 17 yk[k 60 gtkj 780 :
ckfd;kr jgs ,oeWa C;kt o vkjksih dk 36 gtkj 408 ehVj xzs diMk izkFkhZ ds ikl 'ks"k jguk ik;k x;kA bl ij foi{kh Jh eukst dkefy;k o jkeflag dks vuqla/kku gsrq e; nLrkost ds Fkkus ij vkus gsrq uksVhl fn;k x;kA foi{kh eukst dkefy;k }kjk is'k ifjokn 'kkfey i=koyh fd;k x;kA fnukad 24&4&2016 dks izdj.k ds izkFkhZ eqds'k vxzoky us mifLFkr Fkkuk gksdj fjiksVZ is'k dh fd esus Fkkus ij vfu:/k VSDlVSe izk0 fy0 xzksFk lsUVj gehjx< ds Mk;jsDVj eukst o jke flg ds fo:/k esjh cdk;k jkf'k ugha nsus ls eqdnek ntZ djk;k x;kA ge nksuks eS o eukst vkil esa csBdj vkilh fglkc dj fy;kA eukst dkefy;k us eq>s Hkqxrku ns fn;k o esus mldk diMk yksVk fn;kA esjs lkFk fdlh us /kks[kk/kMh ugha dh u gh esjk dksbZ iSlk gte fd;k gSA gekjs vkilh ysunsu dk ekeyk Fkk tks cSBdj fglkc dj fy;k gS dkuquh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gqWaA vkfn is'k 'kqnk fjiksVZ 'kkfey i=koyh dh xbZ gSA vuqla/kku ls eukst dkefy;k o jkeflg }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk /kks[kk/kMh dj :i;s gte djuk ugha ik;k tkus ls tqeZ /kkjk 406&420 Hkk0 n0 l0 dk ?kfVr gksuk ugh ik;k tkdj ekeyk vkilh ysunsu dk gksuk ik;k tkus ls ekeyk vne odqvk flfoy uspj dk ik;k x;kA rQ~rh'k rdehyk ls ekeyk vkilh ysunsu dk gksuk ik;k tkdj ekeyk vne odqok flfoy uspj dk ik;k x;kA vr% izdj.k gktk es ,Q-vkj-u- 16@16 fnukad 29&04&2016 vne odqok ¼flfoy uspj½ esa drk dh xbZ vr% i=koyh esa pkgh rF;kRed fjiksVZ Jheku dh lsok esa izsf"kr gSA^^ In view of the fact that Investigating Officer has proposed negative final report in the matter which is likely to be filed before the competent Court, no further directions are required in this petition.
Consequently, petition is dismissed as infructuous.
( P.K. LOHRA ),J.
Twinkle/11