w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Navneet Krishan Purohit v/s State of Rajasthan & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- PUROHIT AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15140MH1974PTC017282

Company & Directors' Information:- NAVNEET (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17219WB1976PTC030456

    Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1090 of 2011

    Decided On, 05 April 2013

    At, High Court of Rajasthan


    For the Petitioner: R.C. Joshi, Advocate. For the Respondents: O.P. Singaria, Public Prosecutor, R2, Dron Kaushik, Advocate.

Judgment Text

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in revision, whereby, the order dated 4.7.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Complaint No.85/2007 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Section 166 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act has been affirmed.

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this misc. petition are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as the District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh. The respondent No.2 happens to be the owner of the Hanumangarh Gas Agency and was an authorized distributor of LPG cylinders. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 28.2.2007. The allegations levelled in the complaint were that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste and was the proprietor of the Hanumangarh Gas Agency which was authorized to distribute LPG cylinders in the local area. The complainant alleged that he was being hounded by the petitioner for a long period of time for providing gas cylinders to unauthorized persons close to the petitioner. When the complainant tried to resist this illegal attempt of the petitioner, he was threatened that his dealership will be put to risk if the instructions were not complied with. It was also alleged that on 18.9.2006, three gas cylinders were procured by the accused and on 2.12.2006 one gas cylinder was procured by his sub-ordinate after threatening the complainant with dire consequences.

3. The complainant further alleged that in order to harass him, he was given a show cause notice by the accused petitioner. It is also alleged that the accused petitioner demanded illegal gratification from the complainant on numerous occasions. The complainant further alleged that on 9.1.2007 his tractor trolley bearing No.HYEK-6512 which was being used for supply of the gas cylinders developed some mechanical problems, on which, a single gas cylinder was given to one Kishan Kumar Aaswani on the road side. It was further alleged that the complainant was carrying the business of the agency as per law yet the accused in a malafide fashion issued a notice to him regarding the supply of the gas cylinder on the road side despite knowing that the complainant's action was bonafide. It is further alleged that on 1.2.2007 at about 3.30 to 4.00 pm, he sent a truck bearing No.RJ-07 G 2022 to Hanumangarh Town so that further distribution of the gas cylinders could be facilitated through the hawkers and the gas cylinders could be delivered to the consumers at their respective homes. The complainant further alleged that the District Supply Officer, Hanumangarh seized the truck standing in-front of Shanti Nursing Home carrying 150 empty domestic gas cylinders and 6 filled commercial gas cylinders without any justification and for no good reasons. The employees of the complainant namely Sardari Lal Sethi and Bharat Bhushan requested the accused petitioner that the truck had been brought to Hanumangarh Town after due intimation. The complainant further alleged that he was called by Bharat Bhushan to the place where the truck

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

had been seized. He reached there and requested the accused that the truck had been brought for lawful distribution of the gas cylinders under the directions of the accused and that the same should not be seized, but, the accused did not pay any heed to the complainant's request. Rather, he in order to insult the complainant at a public place hurled the words "Ms