Devendra Kumar vs State & Anr on 12 October, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2271 / 2012
Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Hukma Ram Ji Dangi, aged 37 years,
B/c Meghwal, R/o Near Bus Stand, Sirohi, District Sirohi (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Vira Ram, R/o Dakshin Meghwal
Baas, Sirohi (Raj.)

—-Complainants
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, P.P. for State
For Complainant(s): Mr. Richin Surana
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
12/10/2017

1. Petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition

for quashing of F.I.R. No. 140/2012.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the

allegation in the F.I.R. is that the complainant went to the Bank to

withdraw Rs. 8,000/- the accused petitioner withdrew Rs.

3,08,000/- and paid only Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant and took

away Rs. 3,00,000/- which fact came to the notice of the

complainant after she showed the pass-book to her son-in-law.

3. It is contended that the State has submitted its reply and

after taking the video footage, the police has come to the

conclusion that the offence under Sections 420, 384 of I.P.C. are
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-2271/2012]

not made out.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the offence

under Section 406 of I.P.C. is also not made out.

5. Counsel for the complainant and the learned Public

Prosecutor have opposed the miscellaneous petition. Their

contentions is that even though offence under Sections 420, 384

is not made out, the police after due investigation has come to the

conclusion that offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out, as

the petitioner has taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant.

6. It is also contended that the complainant is an illiterate lady

who puts her thumb impressions. F.I.R. cannot be considered as

an encyclopedia and is not required to contain every fact in minute

detail. It is also contended that after investigation police has come

to the conclusion that the petitioner has taken Rs. 3,00,000/- from

the complainant.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. The Investigating Officer on the basis of the CCTV Footage

has inferred that the complainant was aware that Rs. 3,08,000/-

has been withdrawn and the money was handed over to Devendra

Kumar as the complainant was not in a position to count the

money being an illiterate lady. From the CCTV Footage, it is

revealed that the amount was kept by the petitioner in his bag

when they left the Bank. The police after investigation has come

to the conclusion that only Rs. 8,000/- was handed over to the

complainant and the rest of the amount was retained by Devendra

Kumar, in view of the investigation done by the police though

there may be some wrong facts stated in the F.I.R. that does not
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-2271/2012]

give power to the Court that to cull the proceeding where the

police has concluded that the petitioner has retained Rs.

3,00,000/-.

9. In view of the same, the miscellaneous petition for quashing

of F.I.R. No. 140/2012 deserves to be and is accordingly

dismissed.

10. Stay petition stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J.

Amit/54

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *