1
S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1144/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1144/2008
Deepak Arora & Anr.
Vs.
State of Rajasthan
Date of Order :: 14/09/2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr.Srikant Verma for Mr.M.K.Garg, for the petitioner.
Mrs.Rajlaxmi Singh Choudhary, PP for the State.
BY THE COURT:
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is finally heard at admission stage.
By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order
dated 30.6.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
No.3, Bikaner (for short, “the trial court” hereinafter) in
Criminal Case No.580/2001 and the order dated 3.12.2001
whereby the trial court took the cognizance of the offence
under Section 186 IPC against the petitioners on the basis of
complaint submitted by the police.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Carefully gone through the orders impugned.
It is contended by learned counsel for the
2
S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1144/2008
petitioners that the offence under Section 186 is non-cognizable
offence and therefore, without permission or direction of the
Judicial Magistrate, the police has no jurisdiction to investigate
and file the challan. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied on a decision of this Court in Vikky Vs. State of
Rajasthan, 2006(1) R.Cr.D. 132 (Raj.) wherein this Court
observed that on complaint filed the complainant with the
concerned S.H.O. for offence under Sections 186 and 189 IPC,
the police investigated the matter and filed report before the
trial court on which the trial court took cognizance of the
offences. In that case, there was no order of Magistrate
directing police to investigate the case in respect of non-
cognizable offence. On these premises, this court held that
entire investigation conducted by police and subsequent orders
passed by court taking cognizance are bad in law. The
controversy involved in the instant case is squarely covered by
the decision of this Court.
In the instant case as appears from the order
impugned and material available on record, it is clear that
police investigated the case for the offence under Section 186
IPC being non-cognizable without there being any direction or
permission of Judicial Magistrate and, therefore, entire
investigation and subsequent order taking cognizance is bad in
law.
In this view of the matter, the criminal misc.
petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in
Vikky Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). The orders impugned
3
S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1144/2008
dated 30.6.2008 and 3.12.2001 are hereby set aside and the
proceedings taken under such orders against the petitioners
before the trial court stands hereby quashed.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
NK
4
S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1144/2008
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.STAY PETITION NO.1887/2008
IN
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1141/2008
Date of Order :: 14/09/2009
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr.Srikant Verma for Mr.M.K.Garg, for the petitioner.
Mrs.Rajlaxmi Singh Choudhary, PP for the State.
Since the criminal miscellaneous petition has been
allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
NK