Ram Niwas vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the police u/s 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dt. 1.8.2009 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Khandar District, Sawai Madhopur.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner''s daughter Lali @ Lalita was accused in a criminal case. According to the petitioner, since the police officers were unable to arrest Lali, the respondent No. 2 along with police force came to the petitioner''s house and assaulted him. Thereafter, the police fabricated a false case against the petitioner u/s 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. and arrested the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, the falsity of the case is clear from the fact that according to the complaint filed u/s 107 Cr.P.C., the police claims that they received a secret information on 08.08.2009 at 4.50 P.M. and yet the police claims that they reached at the petitioner''s house at 12:00 P.M. Moreover, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the arrest memo the petitioner was arrested at 4:55 P.M. on 08.08.2009 and yet according to the medical report the petitioner was examined on 08.08.2009 at 1.05 P.M. Obviously, the petitioner could not have been examined prior to his arrest by the police. The learned Counsel has also asserted that there are certain over-writings contained in the documents mentioned above. According to him, this clearly shows that the liberty of the petitioner has been compromised by the police. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the police u/s 107, 151 Cr.P.C. are clearly illegal.

Heard learned Counsel and perused the documents mentioned above.

Although prima facie the petitioner has made out a case that there are certain over-writings in the document, but this Court, within its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not equipped to examine the documentary and the oral evidence, which would be required for the petitioner to prove his case. Whether a forgery has been committed by the police or not, whether there is over-writings and whether a false case has been made out against the petitioner as claimed by him are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in its limited jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his liberty has been violated by the police, the petitioner has ample legal remedies to file case against the State for damages. The petitioner would also be free to file criminal cases against respondents No. s 2 to 4, if he so chooses. However, it is not for this Court to enter the arena of highly disputed questions of fact and to give judicial finding.

In view of above, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.