KAMAL CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner under sections 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint filed by the complainant non-petitioner under sections 182 and 211 IPC and all subsequent orders in complaint No. 217 of 2008 and order dated 20.3.2008 passed by Shri Ganeshi Lal Gupta, Additional CJM and Special Court Communal Riots Kota Raj.

(2.) Brief facts of this criminal misc. petition are that the petitioner who is a practicing advocate, lodged report against some persons on 24.1.2007 at 9.00 p.m. in connection with the occurrence which took place on the same day at 10 a.m. at Police Station Nayapura, Kota for the offence under sections 452, 323, 341 and 504 IPC. The accused persons are related to the complainant non-petitioner No.2. Afterwards, the matter was compromised and on 29.1.2007 the petitioner submitted an application before the SHO Police Station Nayapura, Kota with this fact that he is not interested in prosecuting the case. On 27.2.2007, the police in these circumstances submitted final report. On 2.3.2007 the notice was issued and final report was accepted, when the petitioner requested the court that he is not interested in prosecuting the case, vide order dated 30.7.2007. No application was moved for prosecuting the case under sections 182 and 211 IPC by the SHO of the concerned police station against the petitioner along with the final report which was accepted on 30.7.2007. On 20.3.2008 a complaint was filed by the complainant non-petitioner for prosecution of the petitioner under sections 182 and 211 IPC and on the same day the trial court took cognizance for procuring the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the issuance of the notice on or about 18.5.2009 and then on 19.5.2009 an application was filed for procuring the presence. On 9-10.6.2009 the copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner. In these circumstances the petitioner filed the present criminal misc. petition for quashing of the complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken on the complaint filed by the non-petitioner No.2.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complaint filed against the petitioner by the non-petitioner No.2 is an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel submitted that the matter was lodged by the petitioner and the accused persons were his relative. Afterwards both the parties compromised the matter and then on 29.1.2007 the petitioner moved an application to the SHO Police Station Gumanpura, Kota that he is not interested in prosecuting the case. The learned counsel further submitted that if the police was of the view that the petitioner has committed any offence under sections 182 and 211 IPC then this fact would have been mentioned in the final report itself and the investigating agency would have requested the court to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of law. The learned counsel has stated that from a perusal of the final report it is clear that no such prayer was made. The trial court accepted the final report and no such order was passed for taking any cognizance under sections 182 and 211 IPC against the petitioner. When the case came to an end and the final report was submitted without any request for taking action under sections 182 and 211 IPC. Against the petitioner there was no occasion for the complainant non-petitioner to submit the complaint after a lapse of near about one year against the petitioner. The non-petitioner acted malafidely due to some other reason. He has filed the complaint against the petitioner to harass, harm and to defame him. The learned counsel has further contended that there was no occasion for the trial court to take complaint and pass any such order on this complaint. The complaint was detailed one and same was barred by limitation in view of section 468 Cr.P.C. under sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) the limit is one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and under section 182 IPC the maximum sentence is 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-. Admittedly no notice was given to the petitioner and in the complaint no explanation has been given for filing the complaint. The trial court has not properly considered the provisions of section 211 IPC. A person against whom final report has been submitted has not stated a word that a complaint was lodged with intent to cause any injury to him and the charge levelled against him is less. The FIR lodged by the petitioner and the accused persons was related to him. Afterwards relatives compromised the matter and in view of this compromise, the statement was given and application was also moved. The learned counsel placed reliance on K. Ramakrishna and others vs. State of Bihar and another, 2000 8 SCC 547, Ramchandra vs. State of M.P.,2001 3 Crimes 166, Adalat Prasad vs. Roop Lal Jindar and others, 2004 7 SCC 338, Zandu Pharmacetical Works Ltrd. vs. Mohnd. Sharaful Haque and another, 2005 1 SCC 122