TEEJA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
November 12,2014
TEEJA DEVI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAMESH GANESAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-11-94] [REFERRED TO]MADAN BHATIYA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-167] [REFERRED]
AABID HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH SINGH YADAV VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
N. THEJAS KUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-151] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR KARTROLIYA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL MATHUR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. GODAWARI DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
ARIJIT BAGCHI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-226] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-2023-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH JATAV VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIMATI POONAM DEVI @ POONAM DEVI WIFE OF KISHOR KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE POWER HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(PAT)-2017-11-152] [REFERRED TO]
KANTIBHAI RAVJIBHAI SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-304] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULSALAM JESHMOHMMAD CHAUDHARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-282] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 OTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-316] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT.LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
KAVINDRA KIYAWAT VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-9-179] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHAKYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
SUSSANNE KHAN VS. THE STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
BATTULA SIVA NAGESHWAR RAO VS. JASTI VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2016-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
HARSH GUPTA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
VIJENDER SINGH S/O UMED SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-241] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KHEMLANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-342] [REFERRED TO]
SAJITH VIJAYARAGHAVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
ANUSUYA VS. STATE BY TAVAREKERE POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-176] [REFERRED TO]
RAYSINGBHAI KANJIBHAI GAMIT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHAM VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2023-6-103] [REFERRED TO]
KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LIMITED VS. A M SONI GOVERNMENT LABOUR OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2016-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKBHAI DEVSIBHAI KACHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-415] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA JAIN VS. LOKAYUKTA POLICE ESTABLISHMENT [LAWS(MPH)-2023-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU PARIHAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA YADAV, S/O LATE JAGDISH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANJHANE, P.O.+P.S.GAWAN, DISTRICT VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHBHAI RAMANBHAI RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-7-196] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH & ORS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-110] [REFERRED]
RAJARAM NAMDEO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Heard Mr. H.D. Thanvi, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Counsel for the accused Respondents and Mr. Shiv Mangal Shama for the State of Rajasthan.
(3.)The accused approached the High Court through an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for the sake of brevity Code of Criminal Procedure) and sought quashing of FIR No. 7 of 2012, PS Kalandri, District Sirohi, registered for offences Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court noticed the facts alleged in the complaint filed by the Appellant in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi which showed that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and allegedly she was cheated by the accused persons who fraudulently represented to her that her thumb impression was being taken for creating a mortgage deed but later she came to know that they had dishonestly prepared an agreement for sale of her lands. After noticing that the complaint of the Appellant was forwarded to the police for instituting FIR and investigation and that the accused were seeking quashing of the FIR, the High Court took into consideration a report described as a factual report submitted by the Investigating Officer and by placing reliance solely upon such report obtained from the IO, the High Court passed the order under appeal and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.
(2.)Heard Mr. H.D. Thanvi, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Counsel for the accused Respondents and Mr. Shiv Mangal Shama for the State of Rajasthan.
(3.)The accused approached the High Court through an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for the sake of brevity Code of Criminal Procedure) and sought quashing of FIR No. 7 of 2012, PS Kalandri, District Sirohi, registered for offences Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court noticed the facts alleged in the complaint filed by the Appellant in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi which showed that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and allegedly she was cheated by the accused persons who fraudulently represented to her that her thumb impression was being taken for creating a mortgage deed but later she came to know that they had dishonestly prepared an agreement for sale of her lands. After noticing that the complaint of the Appellant was forwarded to the police for instituting FIR and investigation and that the accused were seeking quashing of the FIR, the High Court took into consideration a report described as a factual report submitted by the Investigating Officer and by placing reliance solely upon such report obtained from the IO, the High Court passed the order under appeal and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.