RANJEET SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant revision petition, the accused petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dtd. 8/8/2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metro in Session Case No.164/2024 (State Vs. Lokendra Singh Kalavi & Anr.) arising out of FIR No. RC.2(S)/2018-SCU-V/SC.II/CBI/NEW DELHI, whereby, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner under Sec. 109 read with Ss. 147, 148, 283, 307, 325, 326, 332, 342, 353, 354, 397, 435 of IPC and Sec. 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, are that complainant Shambhu Singh Shekhawat, Sub Inspector, Police Station Malasar, District Nagaur lodged an F.I.R. on 13/7/2017 at Police Station Jaswantgarh, inter alia, stating that after the encounter of accused Anand Pal Singh on June 24, 2017, at Village Malasar, Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, notices were issued to his relatives for cremation, but they refused to accept them and declined to take the dead body, which was eventually handed over by Police Station Churu on July 1, 2017. The relatives, however, did not perform the cremation and instead staged an agitation to press their alleged illegal demands. On June 25, 2017, the Station House Officer of Jaswantgarh was attacked with an intention to kill, a government vehicle was damaged, and sabotage occurred on the highway, leading to registration of FIR No. 108/2017. The dead body was ultimately handed over on 3/7/2017. Thereafter, efforts were made to reach a compromise through a committee formed under the intervention of Late Lokendra Singh Kalvi comprising other members. It is alleged that co-accused Lokendra Singh provoked the committee members to raise their voice against the administration instead of agreeing to the compromise and issued a press note calling for a large condolence meeting to facilitate a major agitation. On 11/7/2017, permission was granted for the use of an amplifier during the condolence meeting. On 12/7/2017, a WhatsApp group was allegedly used to mobilize people for the agitation. Lokendra Singh Kalvi and his supporters threatened the administration to accept their demands. Subsequently, violent clashes erupted between the crowd and the police; stones were pelted, vehicles were set ablaze, and police personnel were assaulted. Around evening, several prominent persons including Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi, Hanuman Singh Khangta, Mahipal Singh Makrana, Durga Singh, Yogendra Katar, and others attended the condolence meeting and allegedly incited the crowd further. The mob then moved towards the railway station armed with stones, lathis, and iron rods, attacking police officers and causing injuries. Some police personnel were locked in a room, and kerosene was poured with intent to set them on fire. Platoon Commander Rajendra Singh was assaulted, and his service pistol was looted. Superintendent of Police Parish Deshmukh and his team were also attacked, and police weapons, including an AK-47 and pistols, were stolen. Constable Shanker Singh Rawat was found injured with kerosene smell on his body, and a government jeep was found burnt near the railway station. Based on these events, the present FIR was registered under various Sec. of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the accused persons filed a counter FIR against the police and administrative officers, alleging that encounter of Anand Pal Singh was fake.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that the learned Court below, without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order, whereby it proceeded with framing of charges against the revisionist -petitioner. He further contended that the proceedings are politically motivated and have been initiated solely to settle a political vendetta. Moreover, the petitioner was not even present at the place of incident therefore, there was no evidence, whatsoever, available before the learned trial Court to frame charges against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner vehemently argued that the court below has not applied its mind before framing the impugned charges. The impugned order is patently wrong, irregular and improper. Hence, the revision petition may be allowed.