Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yogesh Acharya vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 May, 2019
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2164/2018
1. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Shri Prakash Chandra Jain, Aged
About 45 Years, B/c Jain, R/o Kalyanpura Marg No. 2,
Barmer
2. Prakash Chandra Jain S/o Shri Surtanmal Jain, B/c Jain,
R/o Kalyanpura Marg No. 2, Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through the PP
2. Dharam Singh S/o Shri Gemar Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o
Jogiyon Ki Dadi, Barmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2072/2018
Yogesh Acharya S/o Purushottam Acharya, Aged About 45 Years,
B/c Brahman, R/o Behind PS Kotwali, Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through PP
2. Dharam Singh S/o Gemar Singh, At Present Jogiyon Ki
Dadi, Behind Kailash International Hotel, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit, Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor with
Ms.Kamla Goswami, Mr.Ravindra
Khichi
Mr. V.L.S. Rajpurohit, for the
complainant-respondent No.2
Mr. Yogesh Acharya, petitioner (S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petition
No.2072/2018), present in person
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM)
(2 of 10)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order 29/05/2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have filed these criminal misc. petitions with a prayer for quashment of FIR No.378/2017 of Police Station Kotwali Barmer, Distt. Barmer. The events took place during the pendency of these criminal misc. petitions resulted into issuance of show cause notice to Mr.Yogesh Acharya on 24.8.2018 that why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
Facts, necessary for disposing of the proceedings pending against petitioner - Yogesh Acharya initiated pursuant to the order dated 24.8.2018 passed by this Court in the instant criminal misc. petitions and for adjudication of these criminal misc. petitions are enunciated hereunder :-
An FIR No.378/2017 dated 15.10.2017 was registered at the instance of complainant Dharam Singh son of Gemar Singh at Police Station Kotwali Barmer, Distt. Barmer for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against three persons namely Prakash Chandra Jain, Sampat Raj Jain and Nirmala Devi wife of Prakash Chandra.
Investigation was commenced and during the pendency of it, two persons namely Smt.Nirmala and her husband Prakash Chandra Luniya preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.542/2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No.378/2017 of Police Station Kotwali Barmer. The said criminal misc. petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) (3 of 10) Court vide order dated 19.4.2018 with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate representation before the I.O. with an expectation that if any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer shall consider the same objectively.
Another S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1326/2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred on behalf of petitioner Sampat Raj Jain - an accused in FIR No.378/2017 registered at the Police Station Kotwali Barmer seeking quashment of the said FIR, however, the same was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2018.
Thereafter, complainant Dharam Singh had preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1900/2018 seeking prayer for issuing directions to the Investigating Authority to conduct fair investigation in the FIR No.378/2017 of Police Station Kotwali Barmer. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.6.2018 disposed of the said misc. petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Barmer to consider the representation of complainant Dharam Singh if so filed and to conduct fair investigation, strictly in accordance with law in the above referred FIR.
On 16.7.2018, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 was preferred on behalf of petitioner Yogesh Acharya seeking quashment of FIR No.378/2017 of Police Station Kotwali Barmer. The matter was listed before me on 20.7.2018 and learned counsel appeared on behalf of petitioner Yogesh Acharya made a mention that I was counsel of petitioner Yogesh Acharya in relation to some criminal proceedings in a FIR pertaining to the year 2011 of one of the Police Stations (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) (4 of 10) of Barmer. Taking cognizance of the said statement, the matter was directed to be listed before another Bench.
Thereafter, on 23.7.2018, petitioners Smt.Nirmala Devi and her husband Prakash Chandra Jain, who were named as accused in the FIR No.378/2017, preferred second criminal misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2164/2018 seeking quashment of above referred FIR. The matter was listed before this Court on 26.7.2018 and counsel appearing for Smt.Nirmala Devi and Prakash Chandra Jain made a mention that since this Court has already recused itself from hearing the criminal misc. petition preferred on behalf of one co-accused Yogesh Acharya, similar order be also passed in this petition. At this point, learned counsel appearing for complainant Dharam Singh raised objection and informed this Court that petitioner Yogesh Acharya is neither accused in the FIR No.378/2017 of Police Station Kotwali Barmer nor he was ever interrogated by the police in connection with the said FIR and he had already moved an application (Inward No.01/2018 dated 25.7.2018), whereby he sought withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 preferred on his behalf before this Court. The copy of the said application is available on record.
It was argued by learned counsel appearing for complainant Dharam Singh that as a matter of fact, earlier the criminal misc. petitions preferred by Nirmala Devi, Prakash Chandra Jain and Sampat Raj Jain, named as accused in the FIR No.378/2017 were dismissed by this Court on 19.4.2018 and 10.5.2018, to avoid the same court from (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) (5 of 10) hearing the second criminal misc. petitions of them, they have used this tactics.
Taking cognizance of the above fact, this Court on 26.7.2018 directed the S.B Criminal Misc. Petition No.2164/2018 to be listed on 27.7.2018 along with S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 and on 27.7.2018, both the misc. petitions were listed, however, at the request of counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Yogesh Acharya, they were adjourned for 1.8.2018.
On that day, Mr.D.S. Rathore, learned counsel appeared for petitioner Yogesh Acharya and submitted an affidavit sworn-in by him stating that he was instructed by Mr.Yogesh Acharya to file S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018. Mr. Rathore submitted that he has filed the said affidavit for the reason that in the aforesaid application dated 25.7.2018 seeking withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018, petitioner Yogesh Acharya claimed that he has nothing to do with the FIR No.378/2017 of Police Station Kotwali, Barmer and the said criminal misc. petition was filed by the Advocate fraudulently after signing the aforesaid misc. petition with his forged signatures.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court vide order dated 1.8.2018 directed petitioner Yogesh Acharya to remain present before this Court on 2.8.2018. He appeared before this Court on 2.8.2018 and changed his stance and stated that he did not file any application seeking withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 and the signatures on the application and the affidavit are not of him and they are (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) (6 of 10) forged ones. Countered with the said situation, this Court deemed it proper to get the signatures of petitioner Yogesh Acharya done, on the application and the affidavit for withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018, compared by the FSL, Jodhpur with his specimen signatures. Thus, he was directed to give his specimen signatures to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. A direction was also issued that the same be sent to FSL, Jodhpur and the matter was posted to 17.8.2018.
The present cases were listed before this Court on 18.8.2018 and report from the Assistant Director, Regional Office, Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur was received, which was taken on record and the matter was ordered to be listed on 23.8.2018. On 23.8.2018, the matter was ordered to be listed on 24.8.2018 and petitioner Yogesh Acharya was directed to remain present before this Court on the aforesaid date.
In the meantime, a letter dated 13.8.2018 said to have been written by petitioner Yogesh Acharya to this Court was received, a copy of which was also sent to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) has placed the copy of the said letter, written by Yogesh Acharya on record. In the said letter, petitioner Yogesh Acharya has admitted that the signatures done, on the application as well as on the affidavit, filed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 are of him. It is also mentioned in the said letter that he signed the application under the pressure of complainant of FIR No.378/2017 and admitted that he made a false statement before this Court on (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) (7 of 10) 2.8.2018 that on the application and the affidavit, signatures are not of him and they are forged ones. In the letter dated 13.8.2018, it is not stated that he had not instructed Mr.D.S. Rathore, Advocate to file S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018.
It is interesting to note that in the report dated 10.8.2018, the Assistant Director Regional Office, Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur has reported that the specimen signatures of petitioner Yogesh Acharya are not compatible for comparison and some more material, for the purpose of ascertaining the signatures of petitioner Yogesh Acharya on the application and affidavit, be provided, however in the letter dated 13.8.2018 written by petitioner Yogesh Acharya to this Court, he admitted that he had deliberately given different specimen signatures out of fear. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that petitioner Yogesh Acharya has admitted in his letter that application seeking withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 was moved by him and the same contains his signatures, this Court decided not to provide another specimen signatures of petitioner Yogesh Acharya or more material to the FSL as required by it, however, this Court observed that making false statement before the Court and writing letter to a Judge is a deliberate act on the part of petitioner Yogesh Acharya to interfere in the proceedings of administration of justice and the Court had issued show cause notice to him as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act be not taken against him. (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM)
(8 of 10) In response to the said notice, two explanations were filed on behalf of petitioner Yogesh Acharya, dated 24.9.2018 and 19.11.2018, in which, he has tendered unconditional apology and stated that he had no intention to interfere in the administration of justice. He has admitted that letter dated 13.8.2018 is filed by him.
From the facts referred above, it is clear that petitioner Yogesh Acharya had tried to interfere in the administration of justice because in the FIR lodged against some other persons, he has filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 challenging the FIR claiming that he is aggrieved by the same and thereafter requested for recusal of a particular Bench on the ground that the Judge, who is heading the Bench had appeared on his behalf while practicing as an Advocate. Mr.Yogesh Acharya, present in person, has specifically told the court that in connection with the FIR No.378/2017, he has never been interrogated by the police and the police have also not considering him as accused in the aforesaid FIR.
This Court is of the opinion that such an attempt on the part of a litigant to demean the authority of the Court and to interfere in the administration of justice cannot be pardoned, however, taking a lenient view against petitioner Yogesh Acharya, instead of sending him to jail, I direct him to deposit amount of rupees one lac with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one week from today.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it can very well be gathered that petitioner Yogesh Acharya (S.B. (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) (9 of 10) Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018) in connivance with petitioners Smt.Nirmala Devi and Prakash Chandra Jain (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2164/2018) has done all the above acts and, therefore, Smt. Nirmala Devi and Prakash Chandra Jain are also liable to be penalized. Hence, I direct them to deposit rupees fifty thousand each with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one week from today.
With these observations, the proceedings initiated against petitioner Yogesh Acharya, pursuant to the order dated 24.8.2018 passed by this Court in the instant criminal misc. petitions, are disposed of.
It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to deposit the above referred amount with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one week from today, it shall be brought to the notice of the Court.
It is noticed that petitioner Yogesh Acharya is an employee of Government of Rajasthan working as Executive Officer in the Municipal Board, Takhatgarh. The acts done by him are required to be intimated to his employer, therefore, a copy of this order be sent to the Director, Local Self Bodies, Government of Rajasthan immediately with expectation that suitable action shall be taken against him.
So far as merits of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2164/2018 preferred on behalf of petitioners Smt.Nirmala Devi and Prakash Chandra Jain are concerned, it is clear that there is no change in the circumstances after dismissal of their first criminal misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.542/2018 on 19.4.2018 and there was no (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) (10 of 10) occasion for them to prefer this second criminal misc. petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2072/2018 preferred on behalf of petitioner Yogesh Acharya is also not maintainable taking into consideration the fact that he is not aggrieved party as neither he is named as accused in the FIR in question nor the police are considering him as accused. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J ms rathore (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:13:20 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)