Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Paliwal vs State on 18 January, 2018
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc.(Petition) No. 2767 / 2015
Prakash Paliwal S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Paliwal, R/o Brahmpuri,
Village Kankarwa, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan.
2. Bhanwar Singh, S.H.O., P.S.Charbhuja, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit, P.P.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order 18/01/2018 By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks to assail registration and further proceedings in F.I.R. No.131/2015 lodged at Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsmand, for the offence under Sections 489-A, 489-C and 109 of the I.P.C.
Mr.Deepak Menaria learned counsel for the petitioner urges that even as per the admitted case set out in the F.I.R., the packet containing counterfeit currency notes was provided to the petitioner by the co-accused Hari Shankar for the purpose of planting the same on Mangidas. He urges that considering this admitted factual position as reflected from the F.I.R., apparently, the petitioner should have been made a witness rather than an accused in the case. He thus, implores the Court to quash the proceedings of the F.I.R. qua the petitioner.
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2767/2015] Learned P.P., on the other hand opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel Mr.Deepak Menaria and urged that there is ample evidence available on record to show that the petitioner handed over the packet containing the counterfeit currency notes to Mangidas. He urged that the plea that the petitioner was unaware of the contents of the packet has to be establish leading cogent defence evidence and the petitioner is under the burden to prove the same. Regarding the statement of Hari Shankar, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the same is simply a confession of the co-accused and the evidentiary value thereof would have to be examined and by the trial Court. He thus craves dismissal of the petition.
Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned F.I.R., I am of the firm view that it is not a case wherein this Court can be persuaded to exercise its inherent powers so as to quash the F.I.R. at its inception. Whatever arguments have been advanced by Mr.Deepak Menaria would have to be leading evidence in defence at the appropriate stage.
At this stage, the prosecution allegations give sufficient indication about the petitioner's involvement in the offence and hence, the instant misc. petition is rejected as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
Kshama Dixit/16