Dismissed

Roshan Lal and Another v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2013CRLR/1287/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur Bench dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges under Sections 308 IPC. The court held that since a prima facie case was found during investigation, interference with the lower court's order was not warranted without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition and stay application dismissed.

Roshan Lal and Another Vs State of Rajasthan… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1287/2011

¶2

(Roshan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan)

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJATHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1287/2011

¶6

(Roshan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan)

¶7

Date of Order : 09^th January, 2013

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶9

Mr.Shailender Balwada, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor.

¶10

By the Court:

¶11

By this criminal miscellaneous petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 3.05.2011 whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioners.

¶12

It is stated that in the FIR lodged by the petitioners, the complainants in this case were convicted on confession of charges. Now in the present FIR lodged by the complainant/s, making petitioners to be accused, charges have been framed even for offence under Section 308 of IPC, though it is not made out.

¶13

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the medical report and material available on record are looked into, the charge under Section 308 of IPC is made out, thus this Court may not interfere in the impugned order.

¶14

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1287/2011 (Roshan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan)

¶15

¶16

I have considered the submissions made by learned

¶17

counsel for the parties and find that after investigation in the cross FIR, so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have been charge sheeted for offence under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 308 & 308/34 of IPC. Earlier to it, against the complainants in this case and accused in the FIR lodged by the petitioners, the order of conviction has been passed on confession but merely for that reason, the prayer for discharge cannot be accepted. I find that the Court framed the charges after finding a prima facie case, thus at this stage, interference cannot be made.

¶18

In the light of the aforesaid and without making any comment on the merits of the facts to show involvement of the petitioners, which may cause prejudice to the petitioners in trial, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

¶19

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition so as the

¶20

stay application are dismissed.

¶21

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶22

S/No.69 Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶23

All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d gm en t / or d er h ave been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶24

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1287/2011 (Roshan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan)

¶25

¶26

Pr eet y Asop a Jr .P.A.

Roshan Lal and Another v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal and Another v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

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

Harimohan Vs State of Rajasthan through P P.

Mohd. Salim Vs Parveen Bansal and Anr.

Bhura Alias Ashok Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Wazid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Lal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.