Dismissed

Tej Karan Pareta v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC27 Apr 2017CRLR/1475/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the petitioner had charges framed against him for offences with the aid of Section 109 IPC. He argued that the FIR was based on suspicion and there was no evidence of his presence at the scene. The Court held that abetment does not require presence at the scene and found sufficient prima facie evidence in witness statements to uphold the charges.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Tej Karan Pareta Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.

¶2

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1475 / 2016.

¶4

Tej Karan Pareta S/o Shbri Ram Kalyan Pareta, Aged 44 years, by caste Kalal, R/o Village Aklera, Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Mewara. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, PP.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

Order

27/04/2017

BY THE COURT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred on behalf

¶15

of the accused/petitioner against the order dated 27^th July, 2016 whereby, charges have been framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 326, 308 IPC with the aid of Section 109 IPC.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLR-1475/2016]

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence connecting the accused/petitioner for the alleged incident with the aid of Section 109 IPC as an abetor of the incident. The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant – Radheyshyam and the witness – Beeramlal do not show the presence of the accused/petitioner on the scene of occurrence. There is no other evidence to connect the accused/petitioner with the alleged incident. The FIR has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion and the charges framed against the petitioner are required to be quashed and set aside.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the FIR itself mentions the fact that due to some dispute regarding the electric connection which took place 4- 5 days prior to the alleged incident, the accused/petitioner – Tejkaran has caused this incident in furtherance of the threat given by him on the day when some hot talks took place. It has also been stated that it is not necessary that the accused should be seen on the scene of the occurrence when the offence abeted by him takes place.

¶20

I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLR-1475/2016]

¶23

On perusal of the FIR, it appears that prior to the alleged incident, there were some hot talks between injured – Badrilal and accused – Tejkaran and at that time, Tejkaran threatened Badrilal for dire consequences. After 4-5 days, the alleged incident had taken place on the agricultural fields of Badrilal. All the persons involved in the incident were unknown to Badrilal. Statements given by Badrilal, complainant – Radheyshyam and Beeramlal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. depict the manner in which the incident has taken place. It is true that the presence of the abetor of the incident is not required on the scene of occurrence. Abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC can be made even without remaining present on the scene of occurrence. The statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are sufficient to connect the accused/petitioner as an abetor of the alleged incident and thus, the charges framed against the petitioner with the aid of Section 109 IPC cannot be said to be without any sufficient primafacie evidence.

¶24

In view of above, the revision petition is found devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

¶25

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J.

¶26

/Mohan/41

Tej Karan Pareta v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Karan Pareta 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

Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sher Mohd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dharm Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Prem Singh @ Lalla Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Haneef Khan and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Deshraj Gurajar andANR Vs State Labour Depors