Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Inderjeet Mewara vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 31 May, 2013
Author: R.S.Chauhan
Bench: R.S.Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER Inderjeet Mewara Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 963/2013 UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. FOR QUASHING THE FIR NO.140/09, REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION VIJAY NAGAR, AJMER FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. Date of Order:- May 31, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Anil Upman, for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Kumar, PP for the State.
The petitioner, Inderjeet Mewara, has prayed for quashing of the FIR No.140/09, registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ajmer for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijay Nagar, Ajmer whereby the learned Magistrate has returned the negative Final Report submitted by the police and has further directed for re-investigation in the case.
The brief facts of the case are that the Executive Officer, Vijay Nagar Municipality, lodged a report against the petitioner for having tempered with the government record while he was the Chairman of Vijay Nagar Municipality. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 3.5.2007, an auction was held with regard to Plot Nos.13 to 22 belonging to Satyam Commercial Complex Yojna, Vijay Nagar. It was alleged that in order to benefit certain private parties, the Chairman and others entered into a criminal conspiracy. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the record of the Municipality was tampered with. It was further alleged that wrongful loss was caused to the Municipality and wrongful gain was caused to the private persons. On the basis of the said report, the Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ajmer chalked out a formal FIR, namely FIR No.140/09 for aforesaid offences and investigation commenced. Initially, a chargesheet was filed against two persons, namely Shiv Prakash Ojha and Bhairulal for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; the investigation was kept pending against the present petitioner and others. However, subsequently, the investigation was transferred from the police to the CID(CB). The Addl.SP, CID(CB) continued the investigation against the petitioner and others. Eventually, he submitted a negative Final Report. Since the complainants, Brijesh Tiwari and the respondent No.2, the Executive Officer of the Municipality, were aggrieved by submission of the negative Final Report, they filed an application before the learned Magistrate requesting that the case be sent for further investigation. For, according to them, the CID(CB) had carried out an unfair and a partial investigation. According to them, the CID(CB) was unnecessarily favouring the petitioner who happened to be the former Chairman of the Municipality. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and the complainants, by order dated 23.2.2011, the learned Magistrate returned the negative Final Report to the investigating agency and directed them to re-investigate the case. Hence, this petition before this court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate does not have power to direct re-investigation of the case. At best, the Magistrate can direct only further investigation of the case. However, as the learned Magistrate has directed re-investigation, he has gone beyond his jurisdiction.
Secondly, since after a thorough investigation, the CID (CB) had submitted a negative Final Report, the learned Magistrate should have either accepted the negative Final Report, or proceeded to record statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But he could not have directed re-investigation of the case. In order to buttress these contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Babubhai Jamnadas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 667], Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat [2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 622], Ramachandran Vs. R. Udayakumar & Ors. [2009 Cr.L.R. (SC) 64], Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna & Anr. [2009 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 328] and Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. [2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 722].
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the FIR.
Admittedly, the petitioner happens to be a former Chairman of Vijay Nagar Municipality. The allegation against him and others in the FIR is that they have caused loss to the public exchequer and have committed forgery in the government records. Thus, obviously, the allegations are serious in nature. In fact these allegations become more grave in nature as they concern a public figure and a public officer in his capacity as the Chairman of the Municipality at the relevant time. If the allegations are true, and at present they must be taken as uncontroverted facts, then the allegations point towards corruption of the office of the Chairman. It is, indeed, trite to state that corruption has become epidemic in this country which is eating and corroding the vitals of this country. Therefore, the investigation into charges of corruption has to be carried out thoroughly, without fear and favour, by the investigating agencies. In carrying out such an investigation, the investigating agencies are expected to leave no stone unturned. They are further expected to book the alleged culprits and to ensure that they stand trial. After all, the Rule of Law and democracy need to be protected from those who are bent upon undermining both the Rule of Law and democracy in this country.
It is, indeed, trite to state that the jurisdiction of this court in interfering with the FIR is an extremely limited one. The averments made in the FIR should be taken at their face value and should be accepted as uncontroverted facts. If the allegations reveal existence of the ingredients of an offence, then this court should not interfere with the FIR. Therefore, at this moment this court is merely concerned with the allegations made in the FIR.
A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 clearly reveals that it was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate that the investigation done by the CID(CB) was done in hot haste and was not a thorough one. It was further pointed out that in a bail application, by order dated 12.8.2010, this court had given certain directions to the CID(CB) for investigating the case in a particular direction. However, despite the order of this court, the CID(CB) has failed to investigate the case keeping those points in mind. Thus, obviously, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied by the manner in which the investigation was carried out by the CID(CB). It is true that ordinarily investigation is the arena of the investigating agencies, be they the police or the CID(CB), or any other investigating agency. But when a court is of the opinion that the investigation is unfair, is colored, is partial towards the accused, the court does have the power to direct further investigation into the case.
Although it is true that the learned Magistrate has used the words Punah Anusandhan (re-investigation), but the tenor of the order is that further investigation should be carried out by the CID(CB). After all, the learned Magistrate was unhappy with the investigation which was done in a half-hearted manner. However, the settled position of law is that the Magistrate does not have power to direct re-investigation; he/she can only direct further investigation into a case. Therefore, this court modifies the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 to the limited extent that the CID(CB) is directed to carryout further investigation in the FIR No.140/09, registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ajmer for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The CID(CB) is further directed to ensure that the investigation is a thorough one, is a fair one, and is carried out without fear or favour.
With these directions, this petition is, hereby, disposed. of. The stay application is also disposed of.
(R.S.CHAUHAN), J.
GS All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, P