Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
(Prahlad Singh Adhikari vs . The State Of Raj. & Anr.) on 26 March, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 883/2013 S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Application No. 797/2013 (Prahlad Singh Adhikari VS. The State of Raj. & Anr.) Date of Order : 26th March, 2014 PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma, counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat ) Mr. Virendra Godara ) Public Prosecutors for the State. BY THE COURT :
This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur and against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur with the following prayer:
i) To quash the impugned order i.e. Annexure P.3 dated 30.10.2010 passed in the criminal Case No. 43 of 2010 which is pending before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan Area, Jaipur to the extent of petitioner; and
ii) to quash the impugned order dated 13.11.2010 to the extent of petitioner; and
iii) to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Sessions Criminal Case titled The State V/s. Shankar Dutt etc. pending in the Criminal Case No. 43 of 2010 arising out of First Information Report No. 127 of 2010 & chargesheet no. 83 of 2010 of Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur; and
iv) to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the interest of the justice for humble accused petitioner and on the grounds of equity, justice and good conscience, and to award cost of this misc. petition.
Brief facts of this case are that on 11.3.2010 the body of Babli, a girl from Uttrakhand Samaj was found dead- murdered after being brutally raped and badly mutilated in a Maruti Car on the outskirts of Jaipur and it was quite apparent from the state in which the body was found that the girl had been victim of gang rape and there she was brutally killed. The main accused was suspected to be related to a police official and co-accused persons also appeared to be influential people and because of this reason the police did not arrest anybody in the matter for a considerably long time. On 15.3.2010 the Uttrakhand Samaj decided to take out a peaceful rally on 21.3.2010 protesting against non arrest of the murderers of deceased Babli and to give a representation to the Chief Minister of the State. On 21.3.2010 the rally started from Statue Circle and reached Sardar Patel Marg, opposite BJP Party Office at Jaipur. Some police officials and constables stopped the rally and it was informed that five persons can go to the Chief Minister's office to give their memorandum. It is stated in the petition that while five leaders of Samaj left for Chief Minister's office and rest of persons sat down on the road, some police persons eve teased ladies and girls in the rally and when one person from the rally objected 10-15 police persons started hitting rally persons with sticks and batons. At this the ladies tried to save the persons then those ladies and children with them were also beaten. Police also started pelting stones. Some unidentified persons from the rally also started pelting stones. One of the stone hit Rajesh Meena Additional Superintendent of Police. On this turn of events the persons who had gone to give memorandum were brought back and the people of the Samaj were badly beaten by the police. One Naresh Kumar working as Sub Inspector in Police Station Ashok Nagar lodged an FIR No. 127/2010 in respect of the said incident under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 283, 332, 353 and 307 IPC. In the FIR it was recorded that 17 persons were arrested at the place of incident. Charge sheet was filed against 52 persons. During the pendency of the proceedings three persons Shanker Dutt Joshi, Dinesh Kapil and Madho Singh passed away. In this case, On 30.10.2010, the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, passed the following order:
"30.10.2010 ???????? ???????? ???????? ????? ????????? (?.?.) ??? ??????? ?????????? ????? ???? ???? 11, ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??| ?????? ???? ??????? ??| ??.?? ???????| ?????? ?? ??. ????, ?????? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ??????? ???, ???? ????? ?????, ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???, ????? ???, ?????? ???, ???? ??? ????? ?????, ????? ?????, ????? ??? ???? ???, ???????? ??? ? ??????? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ??| ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??| ??? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???????| ???????? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ????????? ???? 2 (??.??.) ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??| ????????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? 13.11.2010 ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??| Thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, who on 13.11.2010 passed the following order:
"13.11.2010 ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???| ??.??. ???????| ????????? ???? ???? ????? ???????, ???? ??? ????, ?????? ??? ?????, ????? ??? ?????, ???? ???, ???? ???, ???? ???, ????????, ???????, ?????? ???, ????? ???, ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??.??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??| ??? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??| ????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??| ????? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ??. ????| ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? 10.12.2010 ?? ??? ??| ??????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ?? ????? ????| The petitioner has filed the aforesaid misc. petition against the aforesaid two orders with the aforesaid prayers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Hans Kumar has contended that First Information Report was lodged merely to harass the accused petitioner and so was the investigation but to save its own face as it had totally failed in arresting the culprits in Babli murder case. He has further contended that the orders passed by the courts below have no application of mind, but reveals the utterly mechanical and routine orders, as such the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that ends of justice did not meet at all from the view point of the impugned order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the court below and therefore, the same has occasioned in failure of justice. He has further contended that the contents of FIR do not disclose any offence. He has further contended that First Information Report was lodged with oblique motive of satisfying their seniors to receive a high rank in the eyes of higher ones. He has further contended that the allegations and incidents narrated in the FIR belie the police story itself as obstruction to the public way or committing violence was at all not present as the day of incident was Sunday on which day the spot, where the Protest march was in progress, remains devoid of almost any traffic. He has further contended that the element of mens rea of any offence is totally absent in the first information report as well as in the charge sheet as the intention to cause grievous hurt to the Police Party or obstruction to the public way is no where present on which count alone the proceedings deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case is nothing but abuse of the process of the court as there was no basis at all to register a criminal case under Sections 147, 149, 188, 283, 307, 333, 352 & 353 of IPC, which is more strengthened by a bare look over the list of witnesses apprehended to the charge sheet, the entry no. 6 therein only reveal seizure of 5 sticks and nothing else or any weapon etc, whereby any injury could have been inflicted, hence the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders of the trial court should be quashed and set-aside.
On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State have opposed the same. They have contended that the courts below have passed the orders, which are just and proper in the eye of law, hence no interference is required by this court in the impugned orders.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the courts below; or to quash the criminal proceedings, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, but it will be appropriate to this court to give an opportunity to the petitioner to raise all the objections, which he has raised through this petition, before the trial court, at the time of charge arguments or at any appropriate stage of the trial.
Hence, ordered accordingly.
However, if the petitioner moves any application for exemption from personal attendance, the same should be decided by the trial court, in accordance with law. The trial court shall hear the case, on the next date of hearing, which has been fixed by the trial court or at any other date of hearing, which the trial court would fix, as may be deemed fit and proper.
It is made clear that if the petitioner(s) is/are not satisfied with the judgment, to be delivered by the trial court afresh on the charge argument, he/they is/are free to approach this Court again by way of filing a fresh petition.
The Cr. Misc. Petition as also the stay application, both stand disposed of accordingly.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
DK/ All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA