IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1163/2005 Date of Order :: 25th May, 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI None appears for the petitioner Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Counsel for the respondents Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, PP for the State of Rajasthan BY THE COURT:
This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of CrPC is found to have been filed by the petitioner on 13th September, 2005 impugning the order dated 17th September, 2004, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa dismissed the protest petition and allowed the Final Report given in FIR No. 142/2004 by the police and further the order dated 23rd July, 2005, whereby the Sessions Judge, Dausa affirmed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition.
Having perused the order-sheets recorded by this Court from to time to time, it is found that earlier Shri Rizwan Ahmed Advocate was appearing for the petitioner in the year 2008, but thereafter none appeared for the petitioner. Today also none is present in the court.
Having carefully perused the impugned orders, it is noticed that one FIR no. 142/2004 came to be registered at Police Station, Dausa for the offences under Section 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. The police, after completion of investigation, gave the negative police report. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Court, the petitioner- complainant filed a protest petition, which after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, was dismissed by the learned trial court on 17th September, 2004. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner complainant preferred a revision petition, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 23rd July, 2005 by the Sessions Judge, Dausa. It is further noticed that on F.R. being filed by the police, the complainant filed the protest petition and his counsel Mr. V.P. Nagar argued before the Court that the police gave the final report sans examining the complainant himself. Thus, the complete evidence was not collected by the police. The interesting part of the case is that neither the complainant examined himself before
the police nor he appeared before the Court. Pursuant to protest petition, he did not appear for evidence, whose statement could be recorded under Section 200 of CrPC nor he produced any other witness in support of the facts of the First Information Report, which he lodged with the police. Resultantly, the learned trial court, having found no evidence on record, dismissed the protest petition and allowed the final report. This finding was affirmed by the revisional court accordingly.
I do not find any perversity or illegality in both the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Conversely, the orders are found to be just and proper, which warrant no intervention and thus, the Criminal Misc. Petition filed under section 482 of CrPC being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
DK/