Dismissed

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhuryua an v. Tate

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2013CRLMP/1243/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged an appellate order that set aside a conviction and remanded the matter for a fresh trial, arguing the delay from the FIR rendered proceedings untenable. The bench held the delay was caused by the petitioner's own successful appeal against clubbing, thus dismissed the petition, quashed the prayer to drop proceedings, and directed the trial court to ex

What did the court decide?

The prayer to drop the proceedings was rejected; the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhuryua an Vs Tate — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1243/2008

¶4

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhurya & Ors.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 02/01/2013

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶9

Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, for petitioners Mr. Peeyush Kumar, P.P. Mr. H.K. Sharma, for complainant

¶10

***

¶11

By this criminal misc. petition, a

¶12

challengeismadetotheorder

¶13

dt.24.05.2008 whereby while setting aside
the order of trial court, matter is
remanded back for trial afresh.

¶14

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits

¶15

that initially FIR was lodged by making
allegations against 8 to 10 persons. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed
against seven persons. A separate complaint

¶16

was filed for left out accused and

¶17

thereupon cognizance was taken. The trial
court tried both the cases together after
clubbing it and convicted the accused. The
appeal was preferred to challenge the order

¶18

¶19

of conviction on many grounds amongst the
ground that matter should have been tried
separately. The appellate court allowed the
appeal and thereupon set aside the order of
conviction. The matter was remanded to the
trial court for afresh trial in both the
cases separately. A challenge to the
aforesaid order is made that trial now
would be after 16 years from the date of
FIR, thus, proceedings should have been
dropped.

¶20

I have considered the submission made by

¶21

learned counsel for petitioner and find
that challenge to the order of conviction
was made primarily on the ground that trial
court wrongly clubbed the cases and passed
order of conviction. The plea raised by
petitioner was allowed, thus, it cannot be
said to be a case of delayed trial rather
trial was concluded within reasonable time.

¶22

It is on the appeal of the petitioner that
order of conviction has been set aside as

¶23

two different cases should not have been
clubbed and tried together. Accordingly,

¶24

¶25

only plea raised by counsel for petitioner
to set aside the part of order passed by
the appellate court with prayer to drop the
proceedings cannot be accepted.

¶26

Accordingly, while maintaining order of
the appellate court, this criminal misc.
petition is dismissed. The trial court is
now directed to expedite the trial and
conclude it at the earliest.

¶27

Registry is directed to send the record

¶28

back to the concerned trial court

¶29

immediately.

¶30

[M.N. BHANDARI],J.

¶31

FRBOHRA/PA/1243CMP2008.doc

¶32

Certificate:

¶33

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶34

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhuryua an v. Tate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhuryua an v. Tate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umardaraz Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Shivpal Vs State Education Departmentors

Hanuman Sahai Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Damodar Prasad Vs State and Ors.

Ankur Kumar Sharma Vs State Ministry of Tourism Ors.

Chand Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.