DHARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid three appeals were preferred aggrieved from order of cognizance dtd. 24/6/2022 in matter arising out of protest petition No. 182/2022 related F.R. number 88/2012 in FIR No. 126/2012 Police Station, Ramganj, Jaipur city (North). In all appeals, the order of cognizance dtd. 24/6/2022 is under challenge, therefore, we are disposing of all the appeals by a common order.

(2.) Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that on complaint of Ravi Vaswani an F.I.R. No. 37/2012 in Police Station Ramganj was registered under Ss. 420, 406 and 384 IPC, wherein after conducting investigation, a charge- sheet was drawn and filed before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan. He further submitted that FIR was registered on 4/2/2012 whereas charge-sheet was filed on 12/2/2012 against respondent/ complainant of present matter. It is submitted that after release on ball, a criminal complaint under Sec. 190(1) Cr.P.C. was filed on 20/4/2022 by respondent complainant before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, which was sent to Police Station Ramganj for registration under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that on the basis of this complaint an F.I.R. No. 126/2012 under Ss. 323, 325, 342, 330, 452, 166 and 316 IPC and Sec. 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act was registered. He further submitted that after a detailed investigation F.R. (closure report) was proposed and submitted to concerned Court. While referring the reasons of F.R., it is submitted that allegations made by respondent/complainant were found to be totally false and none of such allegation was found proved. He further submitted that one of the allegation on appellants were that due to assault by appellants, the wife of respondent/complainant suffered injuries resulting into miscarriage during pregnancy. He referred the report dtd. 25/5/2012 Issued by Health Line Hospital to submit that no complaint of assault was reported at the time of examination by the gynecologist. He further submitted that appellants were in duty of police on alleged date of incident they were performing the duties in accordance with law. He further submitted that Trial Court has failed to assign the reasons to discredit the F.R. While referring the reasons given by police at the time of proposing final closure report, it has been submitted that Trial Court without considering total circumstances available on record had proceeded to take cognizance merely on the basis of unverified statements recorded under Ss. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that as per allegation, complainant/ respondent was arrested in FIR No. 37/2012, and he was produced before learned Magistrate, but he never raised any grievance against Police officials or present appellants. Even after release on bail, he did not prefer to file report against appellants which indicated that present complaint was motivated as it was filed after a substantial delay. He submitted that appellants are Government servants entitled for protection under Sec. 197 Cr.P.C., therefore, referring and relying upon the statements and reasons as given by Investigating Officer while proposing F.R. in F.L.R. No. 126/2012, would submitted that there was no occasion to take cognizance against present appellants, but Trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is bad in eye of law.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and also learned Counsel for respondent/complainant.