Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Devilal Jyani vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Vikram Nath
ITEM NO.14 Court 14 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1072/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-03-2021
in SBCRMP No. 383/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur)
DEVILAL JYANI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.18336/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.18334/2022-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.18335/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT )
Date : 14-02-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gourave Kumar Agarwal, AOR
Mr. Goverdhan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Prameshwar Pilania, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material place on record, we find no reason to consider interference in the order dated 18.03.2021, as passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in rejecting the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking directions for registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 166-A and 120-B IPC against the Signature Not Verified police officers and other persons on the allegations that Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.02.21 16:41:21 IST Reason: 1 proper investigation was not carried out in FIR No. 67 of 2016 lodged at Police Station, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.
It is noticed that after taking note of the accusations in the said FIR No. 67 of 2016 as also the attempts on the part of the petitioner in questioning the investigation therein by even filing a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner (though the petitioner was nowhere connected with the informant or subject-matter of the said FIR), the High Court posed a pertinent query to the learned counsel representing the petitioner as regards locus standi of the petitioner in pursuing the matter. The High Court has specifically recorded in the order impugned that learned counsel for the petitioner could not respond to this pertinent query of the Court.
Yet further, the High Court has also recorded its satisfaction that even on the contentions of the petitioner, prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 166-A IPC were not made out because it was nowhere indicated as to which provision, mandate or direction of law had been flouted or violated by the Investigating Officer. Interestingly, the High Court has also noticed a fact that the negative final report filed after investigation in FIR No. 67 of 2016 was reportedly pending before the Special Judge concerned.
After considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no locus standi in the case and has filed the complaint purely for oblique motives and to wreak vengeance; and allowing prosecution thereof would be nothing short of a gross 2 abuse of process of law. Having such so, the High Court has quashed the complaint proceedings. Further to that, the High Court has also observed that the petition before it was entirely frivolous and such transgressions of the petitioner were required to be repelled with strong hands. The petition has, therefore, been dismissed while imposing costs to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty- Five Thousand) on the petitioner, to be appropriated in the funds of District Legal Services Authority, Bikaner.
After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on the record, we have expressed reservations in entertaining this petition at the instance of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that it had been the matter of serious accusations and has referred to the contents of the negative final report. We find absolutely no reason whatsoever to allow the petitioner to maintain any complaint in this matter and, in our view, the High Court has been justified in dismissing the petition with costs. The error, if any, on the part of the High Court had been of quantifying the costs rather on the lower side and only to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
Though we were inclined to enhance the amount of costs but, having regard to the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and the totality of circumstances, would leave the matter at that only. However, it shall be required of the petitioner to deposit the amount of costs imposed by the High Court within two weeks from today with the District Legal Services Authority, Bikaner; and if 3 he fails to do so within two weeks, the District Collector, Bikaner shall take steps for recovery as required by the order of the High Court without further delay and shall report compliance to the High Court within four weeks.
With the observations foregoing, the special leave petition stands dismissed.
All pending applications also stand disposed of. Copies of this order be forwarded to the District Legal Services Authority, Bikaner and to the District Collector, Bikaner.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
4