HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.)
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Vira Ram, R/o Dakshin Meghwal
Baas, Sirohi (Raj.)
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
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)
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
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has been withdrawn and the money was handed over to Devendra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)
give power to the Court that to cull the proceeding where the
police has concluded that the petitioner has retained Rs.
9. In view of the same, the miscellaneous petition for quashing
of F.I.R. No. 140/2012 deserves to be and is accordingly
10. Stay petition stands disposed.