Case Title: PARTEEK BANSAL VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Case No: 2520 OF 2017
Decided on:19th April, 2024
Quorum: Honourable Justice VIKRAM NATH.
Facts of the case:
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had been filing complaints one after the other, abusing their official position. Their primary goal was to harass the appellant by forcing him to appear for trials in both Hisar and Udaipur. It would also be important to mention that the appellant was taken into custody and then released on bond. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been adamantly against the FIR at Udaipur being quashed. It is worth noting that the complaint filed in Hisar contains accusations stating that during respondent No. 2’s visit to the appellant in Hisar. He had demanded an Innova car and Rs. 50,000,000/-. Therefore, it was incorrect to argue that no crime was committed in Hisar but rather in Udaipur. We are therefore inclined to impose costs on respondent No. 2 in order to compensate the appellant, since we deplore the practice of exploiting state machinery for ulterior objectives and to harass the opposing side.
Appellant’s Contentions :
Our attention to the complaints, the acquittal ruling, and the mistakes that are evident on the face in the contested ruling about the two grounds: first, that the Udaipur complaint was filed earlier than the Hisar complaint, and second, that the Rajasthan Police was unaware of the Hisar proceedings.
Respondent’s Contentions :
The Court in Hisar had no jurisdiction to hear Territorial jurisdiction because the crime was committed in Udaipur; as a result, the Hisar Court’s verdict of acquittal was invalid. Rajasthan Police should have reviewed and looked into the complaint; however, because of the temporary order issued by this Court, the inquiry has not moved forward, and as a result, the petition should be denied. The parties’ counsel has also gone over the pertinent statutory provisions under the Cr.P.C., specifically Sections 300, 177, 461, and Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, with us. Additionally, the following rulings have been relied upon
i). State of Uttar Pradesh v. Prem Chand Singh
(ii). State of Kerala v. T.T. Antony & Ors.
(iii). The case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Versus Chennai Police Inspector & Anr.5.
The appellant’s counsel has cited the first two, whereas the respondents’ counsel has cited the third.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The appeal is granted. The High Court’s contested order is overturned, and the contested proceedings are filed. Women Police Station, Udaipur is quashed as FIR No. 156 of 2015, dated 01.11.2015, with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Only), which must be deposited with the Registrar of this Court within four weeks. After deposit, 50% of the costs may be sent to the appellant and the other 50% to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee’s account.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
