Partly allowed

Kasam Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2018CRLAS/1013/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the special criminal appeal partly. It upheld the Special Judge's order taking cognizance under IPC 376 and SC/ST Act but directed issuing bailable warrants instead of arrest warrants, considering the police submitted a negative final report despite witness statements.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is partly allowed; the order of taking cognizance is upheld, but the appellant is to be summoned by bailable warrants instead of arrest warrants.

Kasam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1013/2018

¶3

Kasam Khan S/o Shri Chhaju Khan, R/o Village Shekhpur Jatt Police Station Tijara, District Alwar, Raj.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

Smt. Sheela W/o Shyam Lal, R/o Village Shekhpur Jatt Police Station Tijara, District Alwar, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, P.P. for State

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

14/11/2018

¶13

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 07.05.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar (Raj.), whereby Court has taken cognizance against the appellant for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3 (i) (xii), 3 (ii)(v) of SC/ST Act.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that there is long pending dispute between the parties. Earlier also complaint had been filed in which the members of the appellant's family were acquitted.

¶15

In the present case also Police after due investigation submitted negative final report and the learned Court below without taking into account the previous enmity, only on the basis

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLAS-1013/2018]

¶18

of statement of prosecutrix and relative witnesses has taken

¶19

cognizance against the appellant.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present appeal.

¶21

I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order.

¶22

Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there are eye witnesses to the incident who reached the spot immediately after they heard the screaming of the prosecutrix. Court below has not committed any material illegality in taking cognizance.

¶23

However, taking into account that Police had submitted negative final report, I deem it proper to direct the concerned Court to summon the appellant by bailable warrants in place of arrest warrants.

¶24

The present appeal is accordingly partly allowed. While upholding the order of taking cognizance, concerned Court is directed to summon the appellant by bailable warrants.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

Amit/58

Kasam Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasam Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Ganga Sahay Vs Smt.Anita Bangali and Anr.

Anil Khinchi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ram Phool Vs State

Ramnath and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Buddh Ram Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Suresh Kumar @ Babbal S/O Rammal @ Ramdas Vs State of Rajasthan through P P