In a special bail revision petition, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against an order framing charges under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the framing of charges and dismissed the petition.
The special bail revision petition and the stay application were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.293/2015 S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Application No. 1006/2015 (Kartik Meena Versus State of Raj. & Anr.)
Date of Order :: 15th September, 2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. GP Sharma ) counsel for the petitioner with ) Mr. Ratan Kaushik) Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.12.2014 passed by Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 28/2013, whereby the charges have been directed to be framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 1.1.2013, an FIR No. 1/2013 was lodged at Police Station, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. Thereafter the arguments were heard and after hearing the arguments, the court below vide order dated 3.12.2014 directed to frame charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC. Hence, this revision petition has been filed before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from perusal of the charge sheet and other evidence submitted by the police under Section
2
173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no ingredients under Sections 363 and 366 IPC are made out. He has further contended that the prosecutrix has made the statement under Section 164 CrPC that she went alongwith the Kartik Meena (petitioner), with her consent. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and there is a property dispute in between the father of the accused and the prosecutrix, hence the order dated 3.12.2014 passed by the court below should be quashed and set-aside.
On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the respondent have opposed the same and contended that prosecutrix was minor and her age was 17 years and 9 months at the time of incident and everything has been discussed by the court below in its order dated 3.12.2014. They have further drawn the attention of this Court on the statement(s), which have been considered by the court below while passing the order for framing of the charge. Hence, the order of the court below should not be quashed and set-aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 3.12.2014 passed by the Court below and hence the revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
3
However, the petitioner is free to move an application under Section 216 CrPC before the trial court after recording the statement of the prosecutrix and the trial court is expected to record the same as early as possible, and, if possible, within a period of one month from today.
The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.
DK
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was illegal or perverse.
Whether to quash the order dated 3.12.2014 directing the framing of charges against the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kartik Meena
State of Rajasthan
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
