Sanjay Kumar Son Of Shri Neel Kanth v. The State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1006/2013 1. Surendra Khare S/o Madan Mohan Khare aged about 48years, resident of T-3 Bhagwan Residency Govind Garden P.S.Govindpura District Bhopal (M.P.) presently working as VicePresident (Arbitration and Contract) at ARSS InfrastructureProject Limited having office at L-32 Income Tax Colony, TonkRoad, Durgapura, Jaipur. 2. Sanjay Kumar son of Shri Neel Kanth aged about 40 yearspresently working as Vice President (Projects) at ARSSInfrastructure Project Limited having office at L-32 Income TaxColony, Tonk Road, Durgapura, Jaipur. 3. Sunil Agarwal S/o Shri Mohanlal Agarwal, aged about 38years, resident of Plot No.VIP-157, Nayapali, Bhubaneswar,District Khurda, Odisha, presently holding the post of ChiefExecutive Officer at ARSS Infrastructure Project Limited havingoffice at L-32 Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Durgapura, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent 2. Ghasi Lal son of Banwari Lal aged about 43 years, resident of 412, Royal Ward, Sansar Chand Road, Jalupura, Jaipur. ----Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh ShekhawatFor Respondent(s): Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PPMr. Syed Saadat Ali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 02/01/2020 Order This criminal misc. petition is pending before this Court since2013 wherein the petitioners have assailed the FIR andinvestigation conducted against them in FIR No.32/2013 registered at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, District Jaipur City (East)for offence under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC. Initially, vide order dated 5[th] April, 2013, this Court hadstayed the investigation and had called for the case diary.Thereafter, on 26[th] April, 2013, a statement was made by thelearned counsel for the petitioners that there are chances ofcompromise being entered into between the parties and therefore,interim order was continued. Thereafter, an application has beenfiled before this Court by the Investigating Officer praying forvacation of the interim order granted by this Court as the case hasbeen pending since 2013. Accordingly, matter came up before thisCourt. It is an admitted position that no compromise has beenarrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitionerssubmits that an FIR was lodged by them against the complainantparty. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are Vice Presidents of the Project andContract and petitioner No.3 is Chief Executive Officer of M/s.ARSS Infrastructure Project Limited. The complainant carries onthe business of supply of Steel Bars through his Proprietor-shipFirm. Petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint vide FIRNo.513/2012 wherein investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323, 341 and 504 IPC against thecomplainant. It is submitted that in the aforesaid background,present FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast of the aforesaidFIR, which is fictitious and is merely abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR andcontents thereof would fall within the seven ambits as laid down inState of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 for interfering with the matter. Thus, investigation ought to havebeen quashed. I have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the parties and perused the material available onrecord. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR andcontents thereof would fall within the seven ambits as laid down inState of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 for interfering with the matter. Thus, investigation ought to havebeen quashed. I have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the parties and perused the material available onrecord. From the contents of the FIR, which has been registeredagainst the petitioners, it appears that some altercation has takenplace as alleged. However, authenticity as to whether actuallysuch an incident occurred or not, is not within the jurisdiction ofthis Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and exclusively within thedomain of the Investigating Authority. Once, the InvestigatingOfficer submitted his report, the same would be examined by theconcerned Magistrate before he takes cognizance. At that stage,the petitioner would be always free to take up the matter. Keepingin view law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal & Ors.(supra), this Court has not find any reason to interfere with thecontents of the alleged FIR and investigation conducted therein. In view of the above, the present criminal misc. petition isaccordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court isalso vacated. The Investigating Officer shall be free to conduct hisinvestigation and submit his report as observed above. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SUNIL SOLANKI /19/4