Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Chandra Bhal Singh v. State Of Raj And Ors and connected matters.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 169

Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 170

Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171

Mangal Das through LRS v. Amar Singh through LRS 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 172

Fula @ Fulchand v. State Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 173

Neha Mathur & Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 174

Gourav Sharma & Anr. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 175

Judgments/ Orders of the Week

1. State Is Trustee Of All Natural Resources, Must Be Conscious To Maintain It: Rajasthan HC On Illegal Mining, Encroachment In Forests; Appoints Amicus

Case Title: Chandra Bhal Singh v. State Of Raj And Ors and connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 169

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently directed the State to ensure compliance of law and prevent illegal mining, encroachments etc. in the Forests, Wild Life Sanctuaries, Forest Reserves, Tiger Reserves, etc. situated at Ranthambore, Sariska, Nahargarh, Jhalana and other forest reserves.

In a batch of writ petitions concerning the issue, the court noted that it is a very sorry state of affairs that the concerned authorities have not carried out their duties for the reasons best known to them, in spite of notification issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and other relevant Legislations.

2. Attempt To Get Civil Dispute Resolved By Invoking Criminal Court's Jurisdiction Amounts To Abuse of Process of Court: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 170

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the attempt of a complainant to get the civil dispute resolved by resorting to invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court amounts to abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the court noted that the real dispute between the parties is prima facie of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court.

Justice Birendra Kumar, while allowing the petition filed by the accused and quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising-therein, observed, "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that real dispute between the parties is of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court, hence the attempt of the complainant to get the civil dispute resolved by resorting to invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court amounts to abuse of the process of the Court."

3. "No One Can Be Arrested Simply On Basis Of Assumption & Perception": Murder Accused Argues In Rajasthan High Court, Secures Bail

Case Title: Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a murder accused after hearing his counsel's arguments contending that no one can be arrested simply on the basis of assumption, presumption and perception.

The appellant's counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, however no circumstances are available except hearsay evidence. Placing reliance on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellant's counsel submitted that oral evidence of any incident must be direct in nature. She added that if it relates to a fact which could be seen, then it must be the evidence of that person who says that he saw the incident.

4. Object Of Rent Control Act Is Not To Deprive Landlords Of Their Bona Fide Properties: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Mangal Das through LRS v. Amar Singh through LRS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 172

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the basic object of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 is to save the harassment of tenants from unscrupulous landlords. The court added that the said object may not be misconstrued to deprive the landlords of their bona fide properties for all times to come.

Justice Sudesh Bansal observed, "It may be noticed that the rent control legislation was entitled to strike a reasonable balance between the landlord and tenant. At one hand where the tenant requires adequate protection against his eviction at the hands of aggressive designed greedy landlord, at the same time rights of landlord also require protection to increase the rent reasonably and to evict tenant on the grounds permissible in law. The basic object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 is to save the harassment of tenant from unscrupulous landlords. The object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 may not be misconstrued to deprive the landlords of their bona fide properties for all times to come."

5. Rajasthan High Courts Sets Aside Murder Conviction On Finding Inconsistency Between Ocular & Medical Evidence

Case Title: Fula @ Fulchand v. State Through PP

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 173

On finding a contradiction between the eye-witness testimony and the medical evidence, the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC (Murder). Instead, it convicted the accused in Section 323 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt).

A Division Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vinod Kumar Bharwani relied on Dunga Ram v. the State of Rajasthan and Jugut Ram v. the State of Chhattisgarh, in which the facts were similar, and the offence of murder was altered to one of voluntarily causing hurt.

Under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellants preferred an instant appeal challenging a judgment convicting the accused for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

6. Mere Fact That Wife Is Earning Would Not Dis-Entitle Her From Claiming Maintenance: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Neha Mathur & Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 174

The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday observed that merely the fact that the wife is earning would not dis-entitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband. The Court opined that the charge of desertion cannot become a ground so as to enable the husband to disqualify the wife from claiming the amount of monthly maintenance, in any manner whatsoever.

Essentially, the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 27.05.2010 at Bikaner; thereafter, the couple went to reside in the USA. Out of the said wedlock, Master Anay (son) was born on 21.05.2011. On account of the alleged disharmony in their matrimonial relationship, the wife left her matrimonial home at USA on 13.11.2013 and came back to India alongwith the son. Later, the wife filed an application against the husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the trial court on 30.08.2018, while awarding a monthly maintenance to the wife and son, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- (totalling Rs.70,000/-).

7. Rajasthan HC Dismisses Petitions Challenging Scaling Formula of Results of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Range Officer Grade-I Recruitment Exam

Case Title: Gourav Sharma & Anr. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 175

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions alleging that the scaling formula for the recruitment exam for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Range Officer Grade-I as has been applied by the respondents-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, is improper and thereby results in huge and undue variation in the marks awarded in different subjects

The petitioners also alleged that the same adversely affected the final merit to be drawn on the basis of marks scaled. Moreover, the petitioner sought directions to the respondents to declare the result on the basis of raw marks.

Other Important Updates

1. 'Bhanwari Devi Repeat': Rajasthan High Court Grants Protection To Woman Who Accused State Minister's Son Of Rape, Murder Threat

The Rajasthan High Court has recently directed the State to ensure protection to a woman who accused Rajasthan PHED Minister Mahesh Joshi's son Rohit Joshi of rape.

Reportedly, as per the FIR, the woman said, "When I called him, he said he is the son of a Minister and nobody can harass him...He brags about his money and power and at the end says that people won't even know where I have disappeared to. The Bhanwari Devi case will be repeated"

The court has issued notice to respondents and has sought their response within two weeks.

Justice Birendra Kumar, observed, "Let the respondents file reply to the petition within two weeks. In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, respondents shall ensure protection of life and liberty of the petitioner."

2. Rajgarh Temple Demolition: Rajasthan High Court Extends Interim Protection For Arnab Goswami, Seeks State's Response Within 4 Weeks

Case Title: Arnab Goswami v. State Of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has extended the interim protection from arrest granted to news anchor Arnab Goswami in an FIR registered against him regarding broadcast of certain news on Republic Bharat regarding alleged temple demolition in Rajgarh.

The court granted four weeks time to the Public Prosecutor to file a reply.

Essentially, the FIR was registered at Ambamata Police Station, Udaipur on 17.05.2022 against Arnab Goswami along with other persons of Republic Bharat under Sections 153A, 295A, 120B, 499, 501, 504 & 505 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant sections of Information Technology Act, 200 read with N.S.A. Act. The FIR was registered pursuant to the news reporting conducted by Republic Bharat with regards to demolition of temple at Rajasthan. The FIR was based on the complaint filed by Congress Spokesperson Pawan Khera. In this regard, Arnab Goswami has moved to the High Court seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

3. Asaram Bapu Case: Rajasthan High Court Grants 'Last Opportunity' To Prosecution To Respond To Third Application For Suspension Of Sentence

Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal v. State Of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has granted last opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to file reply in Self-styled godman & Life convict Asaram Bapu's third application for suspension of sentence in minor rape case, to pursue medical treatment.

Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur, observed, "Learned Public Prosecutor has not filed reply. Last opportunity is granted to him for doing the needful."

4. Constitutionality Of First Proviso To Section 148 Of Income Tax Act, Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice To Govt.

Case Title: Maya Rathi v. ITO

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7495/2022

The Rajasthan High Court bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain has issued the notice to the government on a plea challenging the validity of the first proviso to section 148 of the Income Tax Act by granting arbitrary powers to the AO.

The petitioner/assessee has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice issued under clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Firstly, on the grounds that, without conducting preliminary enquiry, which is a pre-requisite for the application under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Secondly, the reply of the petitioner has not been considered by the Assessing Officer in respect of the issuance of notice under Section 148.

Lastly, the provisio to Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was challenged because it has diluted the standard of test required on behalf of the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Section 148 vests the Assessing Officer with arbitrary powers to open assessments.

5. On Centre's Plea, Rajasthan High Court Stays CAT's Order Granting Notional Annual Grade Increment To Central Govt Employees

Case Title: Union Of India v. Manohar Lal

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has stayed Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur's order which disposed of the Original Application of the Central government employees-respondents/ applicants and directed the petitioners-Union of India to grant one annual grade increment payable on 1st July to all applicants

Notably, the Union stated that the respondents/ applicants completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to be granted the increment. It was added that since the respondents/applicants had retired from service on 30th June, they were not in service as on 1st July of their respective years.

Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while admitting the petition, observed,

"The dispute pertains to grant of annual grade increment. As per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Safi Mohd. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan in D.B Civil Writ Petition No.6024/2021 decided on 01.12.2021, the increment is not payable, however, counsel for the respondent contends that the matter is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

In view of the contentions raised, we deem it appropriate to stay the impugned order till the disposal of the writ petitions."