Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ratan Devasi vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:29681]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6549/2023
Ratan Devasi S/o Shri Shankar Lal Ji, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Near Bus Stand, Mount Abu, Dist. Sirohi, Raj. (Ex-Mla)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Movni Devi W/o Shri Bhava Ram, R/o Ramsin, Dist.
Jalore
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1450/2023
Pankaj Dewasi S/o Shri Shankar Dewasi, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Ramseen, P.s. Ramseen, Dist. Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Movni Devi W/o Shri Bhawaram Gavariya, R/o
Ramseen, P.s. Ramseen, Dist. Jalore
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv assisted by
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
Mr. Dhirender Singh, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
Mr. Rakesh Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
REPORTABLE
Order Reserved on : 07/07/2025
Date of pronouncement: 14/07/2025
The present criminal misc. petition as well as revision
petition have been filed by the respective petitioners against the
order dated 29.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (2 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore whereby, learned trial
court took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under
Sections 458, 352, 440, 379 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(v),
3(1)(x), 3(1)(xv) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Movni Devi
lodged an FIR on 29.12.2014 at Police Station Ramsin, District
Jalore stating therein that on the previous night at around 1:00 –
1:30 am, accused Pankaj, Ratan Ram alongwith 30-40 other
persons armed with lathi and other weapons forcibly entered into
the house and started beating her and family members. They
forcibly dragged her out of the house and while hurling caste
abuses, threatened to vacate the house otherwise they will be
killed. The accused also torn the cloth of the complainant, but her
husband who is handicapped could not come to her rescue. It was
alleged that the son of complainant who tried to save her, was
beaten and thereafter, the accused took away household
articles/utensils in a trolley. While leaving, they again threatened
not to report the incident to police, else they will be met with dire
consequences.
On the basis of this report, the FIR bearing No.186/2014 was
lodged for offence under Sections 458, 323, 354, 427 IPC and
Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and
thereafter, the investigation was proceeded. After investigation,
the police filed a final negative report against the present
petitioners. The complainant respondent no.2 filed a protest
petition in which the trial court by way of impugned order dated
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (3 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
29.09.2023 took cognizance against the petitioner as mentioned
above. Hence, this misc. petition and revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the police
after thorough investigation had filed a negative Final report as
the case was found to be complete exaggeration and there is no
question of disbelieving the Final report filed by the police. It is
argued that the complainant in the FIR has stated that a mob of
30-40 persons had forcibly entered into her house and beaten her
but there is no injury found on her body. In her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has admitted that she did
not receive any injury, thus belies her own narrative. It is further
argued that the complainant has levelled omnibus allegations
against all the accused persons including the petitioners without
specifying who had attacked her and her son or who took away
the household articles. It seems that the complainant out of
personal grudge has implicated the petitioners in this false case as
the petitioners and villagers had made complaints against the
complainant party with regard to encroachment made by them.
Several notices under the Panchayati Raj Act have been issued to
the complainant to remove the encroachment and vacate the
premises but the complainant did not leave. A civil suit filed by
the complainant’s husband is also pending before the Civil Court.
Thus, it is clear that the complainant out of vengeance, has lodged
this false and frivolous case against the petitioners whereas, the
petitioners were not even present on the spot as per location. It is
also argued that the protest petition was filed by the complainant
way back in the year 2015 but the cognizance has been taken in
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (4 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
the year 2023. From 2015 to 2023, the complainant and the
witnesses failed to record their statements under Section 200 &
202 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is submitted that the learned trial court has
committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioners,
whereas, all the other accused stand exonerated despite similar
set of allegations. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2013 CrLJ
3839.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the prayer on behalf of petitioners. It is argued that at the stage
of taking cognizance, the scope of powers conferred under Section
397/482 Cr.P.C is very limited. The trial court has not committed
any error in taking cognizance against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that the
complainant in her FIR as well as her statements has specifically
named the present petitioners and therefore, the presence of
petitioners cannot be disbelieved. The trial court has rightly taken
cognizance against the petitioners and at this stage, minute
discussion of evidence is not necessary. Therefore, the present
misc. petition and revision petition may be dismissed. Learned
counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Pramila Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 886 and Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta & Ors reported
in (2015) 3 SCC 424.
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (5 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, the police after thorough investigation had
submitted negative FR against the present petitioners. In the FR
filed by the police, the police had exonerated the petitioners on
the ground that the location of the petitioners were not found at
the place of occurrence and therefore, their presence could not be
ascertained. The learned court below while taking cognizance
against the petitioners has relied upon the statement of the
complainant and other hearsay witnesses who categorically stated
that the petitioners alongwith 35-40 other persons forcibly entered
into their premises, caused damaged to property and took away
household articles.
At the outset, it will be relevant to refer to the written
complaint lodged by the complainant before the police. In the
complaint, the complainant Movni Devi has alleged that in the
intervening night of 28.12.2014, at about 1-1:30 AM, the
petitioners alongwith 35-40 persons forcibly entered into their
premises and beaten her and family members. Thereafter, they
were dragged to a chowk and while hurling caste abuses,
threatened to vacate the premises else they will kill her. It has
been further alleged that when her son came to rescue, the
accused persons had beaten him too. Thereafter, they demolished
the house and took away the household articles in a tractor trolley.
Similar statement has been given her husband Bhava Ram and
her son Ramesh. Thus, from the statements of the complainant,
her husband Bhava Ram and son Ramesh it is clear that the
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (6 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
accused persons had forcibly entered into the premises of the
complainant on the said date. However, upon close scrutiny of the
statements made by the complainant and the other witnesses, it
becomes evident that there does appear to be a prima facie case
for taking cognizance under Section 458 IPC (lurking house-
trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt,
assault or wrongful restraint), as the complainant’s narrative, even
if taken in general term, supports the inference of unlawful entry
during night hours with preparation to commit an offence. The
learned trial court has, therefore, rightly invoked Section 458 IPC.
However, so far as other allegations are concerned, the same lacks
specific allegation regarding the individual acts committed by each
accused person. The statements fail to clearly attribute any
distinct or overt act to the petitioners concerning the alleged
physical assault, caste-based abuse, demolition of the house, or
theft of property. The complainant has not categorically stated
that the petitioners were the ones who demolished the house with
the help of JCB machine, nor has she clearly identified them as
those who removed household items using the tractor-trolley. The
allegations regarding demolition and theft are made in vague and
general terms, without concrete attribution to any individual
accused. This ambiguity in the complainant’s version significantly
weakens the case for taking cognizance for offence under Sections
Sections 440, 352, and 379 IPC. Therefore, in the absence of
clear, specific, and unambiguous evidence attributing further acts
to the petitioners individually, taking cognizance under Sections
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (7 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
440, 352, and 379 IPC lacks the necessary factual foundation and
is not sustainable.
So far as the offence under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x), 3(1)
(xv), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned, it is essential to
understand the specific ingredients of each provision. Section 3(1)
(v) pertains to wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises, or
interference with his rights over such land, premises, or water.
Section 3(1)(x) involves intentionally insulting or intimidating a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent
to humiliate him in any public place. Similarly, Section 3(1)(xv)
relates to compelling or forcing a member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe to leave his residence, village, or other place of
domicile.
In the present case, this Court observes that no direct
allegations have been made against the petitioners concerning
these offences. There is an absence of clear, specific, and
unambiguous evidence establishing individual acts attributable to
the petitioners that would satisfy the essential ingredients of these
sections. Merely implicating individuals on the basis of omnibus
allegation does not suffice to form a valid basis for taking
cognizance as these provisions require well-founded factual
support. Consequently, the Court finds that taking cognizance
under Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x), and 3(1)(xv) lack the necessary
factual foundation and are therefore not sustainable at this stage.
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (8 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
criminalizes acts under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more, such as
wrongful acts against a person or property, knowingly committed
against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the
accused could be liable for punishment with life imprisonment and
fine. The cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for
offence under Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, which
addresses house trespass or similar acts committed with intent to
commit an offence punishable with imprisonment may extend to
fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, this
provision is not applicable given the nature of the offence and
therefore, the charge under Sections 3(2)(v) also lack the
necessary foundation and is therefore not sustainable.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition and revision petition
are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.09.2023 passed
by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Jalore to the extent of taking cognizance against the
petitioners for offence under Sections 352, 440, 379 read with 34
IPC and Section 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xv) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. is hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioners are discharged of the charges levelled against
them. However, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for
offence under Section 458 IPC. The petitioners are directed to
appear before the trial court on or before 02/08/2025 and submit
the bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/-. If the petitioners
appear before the trial court on or before 02/08/2025, then the
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29681] (9 of 9) [CRLMP-6549/2023]
trial court shall be release them on bail. If the petitioners fail to
appear before the trial court on or before the aforesaid date, the
trial court shall issue warrant of arrest against them.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
1-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)