TEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner Mst. Teena has approached this court seeking to assail the order dated 12.06.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order dated 27.05.2013 passed by learned ACJM, Kapasan in connection with FIR No.28/2003 (FR No.10/2004) of Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner for the offence under Section 380 IPC.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 Kailash Chandra lodged a written report at Police Station Kapasan on 25.01.2003 alleging inter alia that he had gone to Chittorgarh on 20.01.2003 for attending a marriage, whereupon he returned on 22.01.2003 and secured his wife's gold and silver ornaments in an almirah placed on the second floor of his house, whereafter he returned to Bhilwara. When he came back to his village on 23.01.2003 after attending the marriage, he noticed that the lock of the almirah was broken and precious ornaments placed therein were missing. He suspected that some unknown person broke into his house and stole his wife's ornaments from the almirah. On the basis of this report, FIR No.28/2003 was registered at Police Station Kapasan and investigation commenced.

(3.) The Investigating Officer conducted thorough investigation and proposed a negative final report. Thereupon the complainant got the investigation transferred to CID (CB). Three different Investigating Officers investigated the matter and reached to the same conclusion that it was not possible to corroborate and prove the alleged theft. A note was appended in the case diary by the CO, Chittorgarh, Mr. C.P. Sharma, on 17.05.2008 that the complainant Kailash Chandra approached and tried to pressurize him even by offering bribe suggests that he should anyhow file a challan against the petitioner. Thereupon the Investigating Officer gave a notice to the petitioner requesting her to undergo Narco Analysis Test, but the petitioner refused to accede to the said test. The complainant got examined Ms. Pooja Heda (his daughter) and Ms. Durga Sharma and Ms. Guddi Sharma who indirectly tried to implicate the petitioner for the so called theft in their statements. Rameshwar Lal, father of the complainant, upon being examined under Section 161 CrPC, stated that the key of the almirah had gone missing about four years ago. He cast a suspicion that the key somehow landed in the petitioner's hands and that she might have stolen the ornaments. Ultimately, finding the total case as set up by the complainant and his endeavour to implicate the petitioner in the case of theft to be false and fabricated, the Investigating Officer submitted a negative final report in the court concerned. The complainant submitted a protest petition and got his own and his witnesses' statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The trial court, thereupon proceeded to take cognizance for the offence under Section 380 IPC against the petitioner by order dated 27.05.2013, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the revisional court, which rejected the petitioner's revision vide order dated 12.06.2014, whereupon the petitioner has approached this court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to challenge the impugned orders as well as all proceedings sought to be taken against her in pursuance thereto.