Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LEELA RAM AND ORS versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LEELA RAM AND ORS v STATE - CRLMP Case No. 1980 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 5345 (6 November 2007)

CMP 1980/07

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1980/07

Leelaram & Ors. Versus State & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER :: 06/11/2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma, for petitioners

Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for State

***

Instant petition has been filed for quashing of FIR registered against accused-petitioners for offence u/ss.420, 406, 466, 468, 436, 379 & 120-B

IPC.

Before FIR was registered, a private complaint was filed by complainant Mr. Ajeet 4th

Singh on September, 2006. After recording statement of said complainant u/ss.200 & 202

Cr.P.C., order was passed by learned trial Judge 15th on March, 2007 for making certain investigation. It appears that later on FIR has been registered which is impugned in the instant petition.

Basic contention of counsel for petitioners is that once investigation on private complaint is pending, the FIR which has been placed for self-same incident, is nothing, but abuse of the process of law and requires interference by this court. In support of his contention, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court in

Bhoom Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [2005 (1) RCC- 83].

CMP 1980/07

There is no such bar that pending complaint, no police investigation can be made under the

Code. Learned trial Judge is competent to take proper steps for with-holding investigation provided u/s.210 of the Code and this court does not find any error at this stage which may call for interference.

The judgment in Bhoom Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan [supra] is not applicable in the facts of instant case for the reason that after FIR was registered and investigation was pending for the self-same incident, second FIR was registered and

Investigating Officer initiated investigation on the second FIR as well and in such fact situation, this court observed that investigation in second FIR is not legally sustainable it is not the facts situation of the instant case.

Consequently, this court finds no substance in the misc. petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.

FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.1980CMP2007 6-11.doc


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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