The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition. The petitioner, aggrieved by the revisional court's order upholding the taking of cognizance for defamation, was barred from filing a second revision under Section 397 CrPC.
Criminal miscellaneous petition and stay petition dismissed; order of taking cognizance under Section 500 IPC upheld.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 3205 / 2015
Shyam Lal S/o Late Balu Ram, by caste Jangid, resident of Village Sahnali Chhoti, Tehsil & District Churu.
………..Petitioner
VERSUS
………….Respondents
Counsel For Petitioner(s) : None present.
Counsel For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
25/01/2017
The defect pointed out by the office of filing typed copy of the order dated 30.9.2014 is waived.
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the revisional court), whereby the Criminal Revision Petition No.123/2014 filed by the petitioner and nine other co-accused persons has been partly allowed and the revisional court while maintaining the order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Criminal Original Case No.49/2014 of taking cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons
(2 of 3)
for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC has set aside the order of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500/511 IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Churu alleging that she is working as Asha Sahayogini in Aanganwari Centre, Sahnali Chhoti. It is alleged that the petitioner and the other co-accused persons had filed a false complaint before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner on 26.6.2014, wherein certain allegations have been levelled against her. It is stated that the complaint filed by the petitioners and the other co-accused persons was thoroughly enquired by the authorities and it has been found that the said complaint filed against the respondent No.2 was false. It is alleged that in the said complaint, the petitioner and the other co-accused persons had mentioned certain false facts and on account of that, her reputation has been defamed. In support of the complaint filed against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons, the respondent No.2 got examined herself and several other witnesses.
The trial court after taking into consideration the contents of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in support of the compliant took cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 500/511 IPC.
Being aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance passed
(3 of 3)
by the trial court, the petitioner and other co-accused persons had filed a revision petition before the revisional court and the revisional court while partly allowing the revision petition has confirmed the order of the trial court of taking cognizance against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and set aside the order of taking cognizance against them for the offence punishable under Section 500/511 IPC.
Being aggrieved with the order of the revisional court, out of ten accused persons, only the petitioner had preferred this criminal misc. petition.
After going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, this court does not find any illegality in the same as the courts below after taking into consideration the contents of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 and the evidence produced by her in support of the complaint have rightly ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.
Moreover, this criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.
ms rathore/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of taking cognizance under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed as a second revision barred under Section 397 CrPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shyam Lal
State of Rajasthan
Anita Jangid
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
