Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pratap Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 January, 2020
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5277/2019
Pratap Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh, Aged About 42 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Village Beenawas, Tehsil Bilara, District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Gayadram S/o Shri Goparam, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o
Vishnu Ki Dhani, Village Chandelao, Tehsil Bilara, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 23/01/2020 This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court'), whereby the criminal revision petition No. 09/2018 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.
The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in FR No.80/2018 arising out of FIR No.67/2015 of Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur Rural, whereby the trial court accepted the FR filed by the (Downloaded on 24/01/2020 at 08:44:30 PM) (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5277/2019] police, however, dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner.
The office has pointed out two defects in this petition that subject matter is in complete and copy of the order dated 13.08.2018 has not been filed with this petition.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced photocopy of the order dated 13.08.2018, which is taken on record, hence, the defects pointed out by the Registry is overruled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in accepting the final report submitted by the police in FIR No.67/2015 of Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur. It is submitted that from the material available on record, it is clear that enough evidence is available to take cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. It is further submitted that the revisional court has also grossly erred in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is therefore prayed that the orders impugned be set aside and the trial court be directed to take cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petition and submitted that the order passed by the trial court was in terms of the decision of this Court rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2577/2016 decided on 03.01.2018 which attained finality, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the trial court in passing the impugned order.
(Downloaded on 24/01/2020 at 08:44:30 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMP-5277/2019] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner filed an FIR No.67/2015 at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur levelling allegation that respondent No.2 has submitted his nomination paper for the purpose of contesting election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chandelao, Panchayat Samiti, Bilara, however, in the said nomination paper, the respondent No.2 furnished wrong information regarding date of birth of his children. It is alleged that by furnishing wrong information in the nomination paper, the respondent No.2 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The police after thorough investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR has submitted negative final report while concluding that no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the respondent No.2. It is noticed that the petitioner had filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2577/2016 before this Court with a prayer for directing the police to conduct fair investigation in the FIR No.67/2015 filed against the respondent No.2. The said petition was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court by passing the following order:-
'By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction for fair investigation of FIR No.67/2015 registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur. The FIR was lodged with a plain and simple allegation that the respondent Gayad Ram, while contesting the election of Sarpanch in the year 2015 made wrong declarations regarding the number of his children in the nomination papers filed before the returning officer.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report of the Investigating Officer, as per which, three different investigating officers being senior officers of (Downloaded on 24/01/2020 at 08:44:30 PM) (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5277/2019] police extensively investigated the matter and have found the complainant's allegations unsubstantiated. Otherwise also, in view of the law laid down in a catena of judgments rendred by this court including the judgment in the case of Amita Trivedi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (2) RLW 1252 (Raj.), this court is of the firm opinion that even if the complainant's allegations are accepted as gospel truth, the same would give rise only to an offence of making a false declaration before a returning officer, as such, no cognizance could be taken in relation to such offence without there being a complaint by the public servant concerned in view of the bar contained in Section 195 (1)
(b) of the CrPC.
As a result of the above discussion, I find no merit in the instant miscellaneous petition, which is hereby dismissed.
Learned Public Prosecutor shall instruct the Investigating Officer to file the result of the investigation in the court concerned at the earliest.' This Court in the above quoted order has specifically opined that that even if the allegations levelled in the FIR in question are accepted as gospel truth, the same would give rise only to an offence of making a false declaration before a returning officer and as such, no cognizance could be taken in relation to such offence without there being a complaint by the public servant concerned in view of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
The trial court after taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2577/2016 dated 03.01.2018 has accepted the negative final report filed by the police and dismissed the protest petition filed by the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 24/01/2020 at 08:44:30 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-5277/2019] The revisional court has also taken into consideration the above facts and rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the order dated 03.01.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2577/2016 has not been challenged by the petitioner and the same has attained finality.
In view of the above fact, it is clear that the action of the petitioner of filing successive petition before this Court for the same cause of action, which has already been dismissed by this Court, is nothing but abuse of process of this Court. The successive petitions claiming similar reliefs even after dismissal of the earlier petition, is bad practice and is liable to be curbed strongly.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstance, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs10,000/-, which the petitioner shall deposit with the District Legal Service Authority, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within a period of one month. If the said cost is not deposited by the petitioner as aforesaid, the District Legal Service Authority, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur shall bring it in the knowledge of this Court.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 218-Taruna/-
(Downloaded on 24/01/2020 at 08:44:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)