Dismissed

Smt. Pushpa and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2008CRLMP/2133/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under s. 482 CrPC challenging the framing of charges. The court held that pleas of alibi and recovery are matters of defense to be examined during trial and are not grounds for interference at the charge-framing stage. No infirmity was found to warrant quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as no infirmity was found in the order framing charges.

Smt. Pushpa and Ors. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

Cr Msc 2133/07

¶2

//1//

¶3

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **

¶4

Cr. Msc. Petition No.2133/2007 Smt. Pushpa & (2) Ors. Versus State

¶5

Date of Order ::: 07/01/08

¶6

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

¶7

Mr. Jagdish S.Jadaun, for petitioner Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor

¶8

Instant petition U/s 482, CrPC has been

¶9

filed assailing order dt.22/05/07 whereby Judl. Mag.
No.9, Jaipur City framed charges against petitioners
for offences U/Ss 457, 380, 120-B, IPC in Cr.Case
No.461/06 (FIR-190/06 PS Subhash Chowk, Jaipur),
which was upheld by Addl.Sess. Judge (FT) No.4,
Jaipur City in Cr.Rev-736/07 vide order dt.14/08/07.

¶10

Grievance of petitioners is that they were
not present on the date of occurrence and that apart,
no recovery was made from the accused.

¶11

Complainant filed a complaint which was sent
for investigation U/s 156(3) CrPC to the police, on
which FIR-190/06 was registered at PS Subhash Chowk
(Jaipur) and after investigation challan was filed
and cognizance was taken and petitioners were charged
for offences (supra) vide order dt.22/05/07 – against
which revision petition was preferred but after
considering in details, Court of Revision did not

¶12

Cr Msc 2133/07

¶13

find any substance to interfere with order framing
charges against them.

¶14

As regards plea of alibi, it can be at best
defence of petitioners but cannot be looked into at
the stage of charge. Similarly, as regards recovery,
both the courts below have taken note and have
observed about recovery made under orders impugned.
This Court does not find any infirmity which may call
for interference.

¶15

Consequently, misc. petition fails and is

¶16

hereby dismissed.

¶17

K.Khatri/p.2/2133CrMscP07frmchrg.doc

Smt. Pushpa and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chand Vs State

Susresh Chand Ramola Vs Sooraj Mal Vijay Kumar

Pp Sharma Vs Kamlesh Pareek

Ram Narain Vs State

Narain Singh Vs State

Nathi and Ors. Vs State and Ors.