Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


PRAHLAD SHARMA AND ANR v STATE - CRLMP Case No. 886 of 2005 [2006] RD-RJ 1755 (24 August 2006)




Prahlad Sharma and anr.




S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.886/2005 u/S. 482 Cr.P.C.


Date of Order:- August 24, 2006.



Mr. Sudhir Jain for the accused-petitioners.

Mr. Arun Sharma P.P. for the State.



This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 25/4/2005 passed by the learned Special Court (Fake Currency Notes Cases),

Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr.Revision No.44/2005 whereby the revision petition preferred against the order dated 12/4/2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in

Cr.Case No.171/2004 has been rejected and the said order has been upheld. 886/2005 (2)

It appears that on the basis of the written first information report made by Smt.Shashi Swami at

P.S. Manak Chowk, Jaipur, F.I.R. No.156/2001 came to be registered on 28/4/2001 for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 451 I.P.C.

After investigation, negative final report was filed. The complainant moved a protest petition whereupon after recording of her statement under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 12/4/2004. Revision petition preferred against the said order was rejected upholding the same as indicated above. Hence, this petition.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned court below while taking cognizance against the petitioners has not considered the reasonings and materials collected during the investigation and has thus committed illegality which tantamounts to abuse of the process of the court. He has also submitted that the learned revisional court has also failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not following the direct authority of this Court on this point. Learned Public Prosecutor has also not controverted these contentions.

I have considered the respective submissions and have perused the relevant documents placed before me and the authorities cited at the bar. 886/2005 (3)

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Jaishiv

Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2003(1) Cr.L.R.

(Raj.) 793, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. : 1990(2) RLW 29 and Jagdish Ram Vs.

State of Rajasthan 1988(2) WLN 311 wherein it has been held by this Court that the Magistrate has to consider the final report as well as investigation made by the police officer to determine whether cognizance on the basis of complaint can be taken or not.

Admittedly, the learned courts below have neither taken into consideration the materials collected by the police during the investigation nor have considered the reasonings given by the investigating agency submitting a negative final report. The learned Magistrate appears to have proceeded to take cognizance only on the basis of the evidence recorded under the protest petition under

Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order of the learned court below is unsustainable in view of the law enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid authorities.

In this view of the matter, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the learned Magistrate for passing fresh order in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 886/2005 (4)

In the result, this petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order dated 25/4/2005 passed by the learned Special Court (Fake Currency Notes Cases),

Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr.Revision No.44/2005 as also the order dated 12/4/2004 passed by the learned

Magistrate taking cognizance are quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned

Magistrate to pass fresh order in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove and the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned authorities.

(HARBANS LAL), J. anil/-


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.