HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4802/2018

Lovdeep Singh S/o Shri Nishant Singh B/c Sikh , Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Makkasar, Tehsil Padampur, District
Sriganganagar Presently R/o 119/31, Thadi Market, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp , Rajasthan
2. Kumari Reena Sharma D/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma ,
R/o 131, Shekhawati Nagar, Kalwad Road, Govindpura,
Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur.
—-Respondents

Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4803/2018
Pavitra Singh S/o Shri Balkaran Singh B/c Sikh , Aged About 20
Years, R/o Village Makkasar, Tehsil Padampur, District
Sriganganagar, Presently R/o 119/31, Thadi Market, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp , Rajasthan.

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

-/Order/-

14/08/2018

By this common order, SBCRLMP No.4802/2018

preferred by Lovdeep Singh and SBCRLMP No.4803/2018

instituted by Pavitra Singh shall be decided together.

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-4802/2018]

In the both the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

quashing of FIR No. 839/2017 registered at Police Station Shipra

Path, District Jaipur (South) for the offences under Sections 354

and 509 IPC, is prayed for.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that the complainant Reena Sharma on 15.11.2017 presented a

written report – Annexure-1 and in the said written report, she

has levelled no allegation that the accused touched her. The

learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that from

perusal of the Annexure-1 no offence under Section 354 IPC is

made out.

In pre-lunch session, after perusal of the written report

Annexure-1, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to

call the investigating officer. In pursuance of the said order, Sub

Inspector Rajendra Prasad, P.S. Shipra Path, Jaipur is present in

the court alongwith file of the case. He has denied the presence of

Annexure-1 and stated that same is not part of the police file. For

ready reference, the written report – Annexure-1 relied by the

petitioners is reproduced below:-

Ekgksn;]

lfou; fuosnu gS fd esjk uke jhuk’kekZ D/o jktsUnz ‘kekZ gSaA eSa ifj”dkj
dkWyst esa i+rh gwWA dqN yMds eqs NsM jgs Fks rFkk esjs lkFk xkyhxykSp dj jgs
FksA ;g ?kVuk vkt 151117 dks tc eSa dkWyst ls 2 cts NqV~Vh gksus ij ?kj tk
jgh FkhA og rhu yMds ckbZd ij Fks mudh ckbZd dk ua- eSaus uksV dj fy;k Fkk]
mudh ckbZd dk ua- RJ14 SP 9763 gSA eSa iSnyiSny ehjk ekxZ tk jgh FkhA
vr% vkils fuosnu gS fd mfpr dk;Zokgh djsA
Plot No.-131] ‘ks[kkokVh uxj] xksfoUniwjk] t;iqj
izkFkhZ
jhuk ‘kekZ

Mob.-9828430229

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that vide Annexure-2 on 22.11.2017 at 10:20 PM, the petitioners

were arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, they were
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-4802/2018]

taken to the police station and on 23 rd November i.e. next morning

a complaint under Section 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. was presented in

the court of Executive Magistrate cum Assistant Police

Commissioner, Jaipur (South). The learned counsel for the

petitioners has contended that after filing of the report Annexure-

1, and submission of complaint under Section 107 and 151 Cr.P.C.

the complainant resorted to improvement and submitted another

report on the basis of which, formal FIR Annexure-4 was

registered.

In the subsequent report Annexure-4 dated

23.11.2017, the complainant added ” o xyr txg NqvkA”. The

learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that these words

after eight days of the occurrence in a subsequent written report

were added to implicate petitioner for offence punishable under

Section 354 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that the occurrence had taken place on 15.11.2017 at

2:00 PM. Immediately report Annexure-1 was submitted and in

the report Annexure-1 reproduced above, the above said words

were missing. Subsequently, after eight days improvement was

made to invoke Section 354 IPC against the petitioners.

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from Sub

Inspector Rajendra Prasad has submitted that the written report

Annexure-1 relied by the counsel for the petitioners is not part of

the case diary. It is stated that the statement of the complainant

was recorded for the first time on 23.11.2017 and on the basis

thereof, FIR was registered.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Whether the Annexure-1 was submitted by the

complainant or not, is question of fact, if Annexure-1 was not
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-4802/2018]

submitted, what is the effect of delayed report and FIR dated

23.11.2017, which is after delay of eight days of the occurrence,

is in the realm of appreciation.

Petitioners have already been enlarged on bail.

Therefore, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C. shall not tread on the path of appreciation or

evaluation of the evidence, which is the sole prerogative of the

trial court.

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from Sub

Inspector Rajendra Prasad, has submitted that the report of

investigation alongwith opinion of the investigating officer, shall be

filed in the court of competent jurisdiction within one week form

today.

The investigating officer is directed to take into

consideration the report Annexure-1 relied by the petitioners, if

the same is part of Police file.

In view of the observation made above, the present

petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all

arguments available to them before the trial court at appropriate

stage.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)