Skip to content


Ram Babu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 227 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)200
AppellantRam Babu and ors.
RespondentState of Rajasthan and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....that he had himself participated in the game and there was no force to stay there against his wish. the learned magistrate was not at all justified in taking cognizance of the offences under sections 342 and 420 ipc against these accused persons.;revision accepted. - - 6. so far as the offence under section 342 ipc is concerned, roop chand has of course, stated that they had forced him to stay there and was not allowed to go but from the trend of the whole statement, it clearly appears that he had himself participated in the game and there was no force to stay there against his wish. the statement that force was used and he was not allowed to go even to make water, clearly appears to be an exaggeration......filed by the police.2. briefly stated the facts of the case are these : on 18-12-1983, tej pal s/o roop chand filed a fir at police station banswara that on that morning when he and his father were at their house, jaswant and bhagwati lal came there and told his father that if he wanted to sell his shop situated in banswara, he may go with them to hotel shri ram lodge where a seth had come and wanted to purchase the same. however, at the hotel no talk about the sale of the shop took place but he was forced to play the game of 'tikris' (some sort of gambling). at the end of the game in which jaswant, bhagwati lal, ram babu and uma shanker participated they told roop chand that he had own rs. 19,500/-. they also told roop chand to show what amount was with him so that they may pay the.....
Judgment:

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. This revision has been filed by the three petitioners Ram Babu, Uma Shanker and Bhagwati Prasad against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, dt. 26-3-1984 by which he took cognizance of the offences Under Sections 420 and 342 IPC against them disagreeing with the final report filed by the police.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are these : On 18-12-1983, Tej Pal s/o Roop Chand filed a FIR at police station Banswara that on that morning when he and his father were at their house, Jaswant and Bhagwati Lal came there and told his father that if he wanted to sell his shop situated in Banswara, he may go with them to hotel Shri Ram Lodge where a seth had come and wanted to purchase the same. However, at the hotel no talk about the sale of the shop took place but he was forced to play the game of 'Tikris' (some sort of gambling). At the end of the game in which Jaswant, Bhagwati Lal, Ram Babu and Uma Shanker participated they told Roop Chand that he had own Rs. 19,500/-. They also told Roop Chand to show what amount was with him so that they may pay the amount, which he had won. Roop Chand told them that he had no money except a bare sum of Rs. 60/-. One of them took the sum of Rs. 60/- also from him by deceitful means. On this report, the police investigated the case and on the completion of the investigations, filed a final report stating that it appears that on account of some dispute about gambling and some quarrel between the parties at the transport office, this FIR had been filed by Tejpal by unnecessarily exaggerating the matters. The learned Magistrate, however, did not agree with this report and took cognizance of the offence Under Sections 420 & 342 IPC. Aggrieved of this, the petitioners have come up to this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is agreed that the matter may be finally disposed of at this stage.

4. The whole case depends upon the statement of Roop Chand because it is he on whose information, the FIR was lodged by his son Tej Pal and it is he who is said to have been cheated and illegally confined. A bare perusal of the statement of Roop Chand would go to show that he denies having played any game with these persons. He nowhere states that he had won a sum of Rs. 19,500/-. He also does not state that any amount was paid to him by any of the accused persons and he also does not say that later any amount had been snatched from him. All that he says is that he had paltry sum of Rs. 60/-with him. He also says that the accused only had played the game and at the end of that game, they told him that he had won a sum of Rs. 19.500/-, whereupon he told them that he had nothing to do with that game. Therefore, so far as the snatching of Rs. 9000/- or depriving him from that amount goes, Roop Chand does not say anything and, therefore no case can be made out in respect of this amount Under Section 420 IPC. So far as the sum of Rs. 60/- is concerned, Roop Chand says that Bhagwati Lal had told him that whatever money they had, had been taken away by the seth and they wanted some amount for purchasing the tickets and he requested him to pay that amount on which he paid Rs. 60/- to them on the under standing that they will come back with the seth after two days. Therefore, so far as the parting with Rs. 60/- also is. concerned, there is no question of any deceit being practiced upon him. He: had given this amount as a loan payable after two days and, therefore, he cannot make a grouse that he had been cheated in this respect.

6. So far as the offence Under Section 342 IPC is concerned, Roop Chand has of course, stated that they had forced him to stay there and was not allowed to go but from the trend of the whole statement, it clearly appears that he had himself participated in the game and there was no force to stay there against his wish. The statement that force was used and he was not allowed to go even to make water, clearly appears to be an exaggeration. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 342 and 420 IPC against these accused persons..

7. The revision is, therefore, accepted and the order of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, dated 26-3-84 is quashed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //