The Court dismissed a criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders framing charges and dismissing a revision petition. It held no grave miscarriage of justice occurred justifying interference after the revision was disposed of.
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 of 2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 6714/2015
Anurag Goyal S/o Shri Rajkumar Goyal, aged about 35 years, R/o House No.11, Everest Vihar, Kings Road, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia
For Respondents : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
10/2/2017
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the orders dated 23.03.2015 and 16.11.2015.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned state counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
F.I.R. in question was lodged by respondent no.2 against the petitioner and his family members alleging harassment on account of demand of dowry. Matter was duly investigated by the police and challan was presented against the petitioner.
(2 of 2)
Vide order dated 23.03.2015, charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 498-A & 406 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order whereby, charges were ordered to be framed against him was dismissed by the court of revision vide order dated 16.11.2015. At the stage of framing of charges, trial court is required to prima facie see as to whether case for proceeding against the petitioner is made out or not. As per the F.I.R. respondent no.2 has alleged regarding harassment meted out to her by the petitioner on account of demand of dowry.
Hence, learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner.
It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Dismissed.
Mohita/18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of the revision petition by the Sessions Court.
Whether grave miscarriage of justice has occurred in the impugned orders.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Anurag Goyal
The State of Rajasthan through P.P.
Madhubala Agarwal
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
