GOPIRAM AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the petitions have challenged a single order dtd. 22/5/2019 passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in FR No. 113/2009 Kotwali, District Banswara, whereby cognizance has been taken against respondents under Ss. 143,448 and 504 of IPC. The complainant is aggrieved on the ground that some of the alleged offences have not been taken into consideration, and certain individuals have been exonerated despite the availability of sufficient material against them. On the other hand, the accused persons, against whom process has been issued, have assailed the order on the ground that no prima facie case is made out to proceed against them. With the consent of both parties, the matters were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the complainant filed an FIR under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that on 27/4/2009, the accused persons unlawfully entered the premises, held a meeting at Raj Rajeshwar Mandir, and threatened the petitioner by raising slogans and blocking access to his property. The police after investigation filed a negative final report, which the petitioner contested, leading the trial court to take cognizance under Ss. 143, 448, and 504 of the IPC. The petitioner aggrieved by that order has now filed the instant criminal miscellaneous petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is erroneous, vexatious, and based on conjecture and surmise, warranting its quashing and setting aside. He further submits that the FIR clearly states that on the date of the incident, the accused persons forcefully entered the petitioner's property without his permission, thereby constituting criminal trespass under Sec. 447 IPC. Furthermore, despite being informed of the fixed schedule for temple visits, the accused unlawfully used criminal force, caused hurt, and wrongfully restrained the petitioner and his staff, attracting offences under Ss. 323 and 342 IPC. Additionally, the accused respondents unlawfully assembled within the petitioner's premises with a common object to commit force and violence, thereby necessitating the invocation of Ss. 146 and 147 IPC. Moreover, the unlawful assembly was organized with the intent to threaten and intimidate the petitioner into surrendering possession of the temples, which amounts to an offence under Sec. 384 IPC. However, the learned trial court failed to consider these crucial aspects while taking cognizance, leading to an unjust and incomplete order. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the necessary correction of this legal oversight by quashing the impugned order and directing cognizance to be taken for all relevant offences.