Ratan Lal & Ors vs State & Anr on 12 November, 2008

                                       1

S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.567/2007
RATAN LAL & OTHERS V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER.

DATE OF ORDER                      :::                 12/11/2008

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA


Mr. Mahesh Bora, for Petitioner (s).
Mr. O. P.Rathi, PP, for the State.


      Petitioner requests for quashing of cognizance order dated 2.5.07.
      Alleged   factual aspects, as narrated in the assailed cognizance
order dated 10.4.07, are that on 7.4.07, respondent No.2 presented a
criminal complaint before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gangapur, District - Bhilwara and the learned Magistrate,
proceeding under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C., examined five witnesses
and for the reasons and circumstances mentioned in the order taking
cognizance for the offences of Sections 447, 365, 342, 323, 379, IPC &
Section 3 (1) (10) of Prevention of Atrocities of SC/ST Act registered
regular case against petitioners and one named Block Development Officer
(BDO).
      Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a bare perusal of
the order discloses that the order is plainly arbitrary and illegal and not
sustainable. Argued that (1) as is clearly narrated in the impugned order
itself, learned Magistrate inspected, measured and examined the site i.e.,
disputed land and plot on 8.4.07 and inferred something. (2) Not only
inspected and examined site, but also got it and adjacent measured by
several persons and     (3)   also is described all the surroundings as
allegedly was observed by the learned Magistrate himself. Argued that
order is based on extraneous considerations and also the impugned order
observed and commented upon are many other points, including that of
Panchayat Act, Rules and Section 197, Cr.P.C. Submitted that order also
finds mention of presentation by complainant of       certain news items
published in a newspaper.        Lastly argued that the complaint was
                                     2

presented on 7.4.07 and as per order           itself   on April 8th, learned
Magistrate some how inspected site and by 10.4.07, five witnesses
examined with promptness that speaks for itself. Also submitted that the
plot is said to be of a named woman, whereas complainant respondent
No.2 alleged to be a Mason for construction.
        Also submitted that matter may deserve          look at administrative
side.
        Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for the order impugned
above are the arguments, but cognizance is taken on the material
available.
        Considered arguments and also perused the impugned order. It
will be appropriate to mention some of the parts of the 10 typed pages of
the impugned order :-
              "मन द न क : 8.4.07 क आमल ग म म व ध क स करत
        ध व र क    र न उपस त ग म ण! क" इस सम%न म दकय गय
        धन न क मधय नजर रख उक जगह क ध व र क र न ग म ण!
        क" उपस धत म म क            ख ए भ0खण2 क न प च प भ         ह
        उपस त प%5दजन स कर य । मन ह प य दक उक भ0खण2 क
        व%लक0ल सट ह0ए त न कव%न लग ह0ए ह त           र 2 % क" %न ह0ए
        मक न! स क फ" पय प  ; ए च 2= ह> । ल 2       क भ0खण2 क सर ल
        क मक न र 2 क" तरफ उसस भ प च फ"ट आग धनकल ह0आ ह>
        ऐस पत त ह0आ दक उसक" जम न ज 400 ग; म टर ह> उसस क फ"
        कम जम न पर उसक धनम ण       ; क य; ए आध पतय ह> । % जA इसक
        भ उपय0क पक र क व%न दकस अध क ररत क दकय गय उक क5 तय
        आपर ध क क5 तय ह> 1 ......................"

                  "मर व नम मत म यद     ल क स क द र प पर ह त ह0ए भ
        अध क र! स पर ज कर ऐस क ई क5 तय दकय ज त ह त उस           र
        197 .प.स. क सरकण नह= धमलग और उसक धलए अधभय जन
             क5 धत क" आ शयकत नह= ह> और यद ऐस पकरण! म अधभय जन
             क5 धत क" आ शयकत पत त ह न म न ज त ह> दक आपर ध क
        क5 तय करन ल ऐस ल ग! क प तस दहत करन ह ग । इस पकरण
        म तथय ए पररस धतय! क खत ह0ए ल क स क सरपच, व क स
        अध क र=          र 197 .प.स. क सरकण प प करन क प त नह= ह।
        ..................."

              "सरपच ए व क स अध क र= न अनय वयवकय! क स      धमल
         कर अपन प =य ह> धसयत स % हर ज कर एक मदहल क" जम न पर
         स उसक %ज % खल करन क" गरज स ए धन Lष अन0सधA चत ज धत
         क क र=गर! ए मज रA ! क स   व%न दकस पA ; सAचन ए परर =
         सदहत उन क र=गर! ए मज र0 ! क स    अधभय0कगण द र म रप ट
                                     3

       क" उनह ज धतगत रप स अपम धनत दकय गय उनह!न इस घटन क
       सम%न म सम च र पत म छप ख%र द न क 07.04.07 क" प त0त
       क"।......................."
Described and discussed in impugned order of learned Magistrate are
some other points-and mention is also of some order of Hon'ble High
Court in favour of complainant. Statements of witnesses also find place
in the order but not mentioned is name of any one who measured or
mentioned at spot (where the officer was). Considering rival arguments
and without going into merits of the case, on the bare contents of the
order, in the opinion of the Court, the order deserves to be set aside.
Since the proceedings related to subject-matter is pending or may be
pending, it is not desirable to probe, examine or comment on alleged facts
or happenings.
      Setting aside the order, it is hereby directed that proceedings or
complaint of respondent No.2 may commence afresh, i.e. right from the
stage of Section 200, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of
as ordered above.
                                                     (C. M.TOTLA), J.