Dismissed

Narayan Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2018CRLMP/1003/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order of the trial court rejecting an application to take cognizance against additional accused persons for dowry-related offences for lack of sufficient evidence on record.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside and direction to take cognizance against additional accused persons for offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 IPC is dismissed.

Narayan Singh Vs State — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1003 / 2018

¶3

Narayan Singh S/o Shri Chagan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Village Kuarda, P.S. Nosra, Tehsil Aahore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through the Learned P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.N.S. Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

02/04/2018

¶12

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge Merta, District Nagaur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in sessions case No.57/2015 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for taking cognizance against two additional accused persons has been dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the material collected by the police during the course of the investigation i.e. evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that ample evidence is available against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased to take cognizance against them for the offences punishable under Sections 304 B, 498-A and 201 IPC but the trial court without taking into consideration the material available on

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMP-1003/2018]

¶16

record has illegally rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that the impugned order set aside and the trial court be directed to take cognizance against two additional accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 304 B, 498-A and 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.57/2015.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order as well as the material placed on record, this Court is convinced that the learned trial court has correctly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C., with a prayer for taking cognizance against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, as sufficient evidence is not available against them on record.

¶19

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

¶20

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶21

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

¶22

Gaurav/28

Narayan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Singh v. State

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

Smt. Sunita Mehra and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Prakash Chandani Vs State and Anr.

Smt Komal Kumari Meena and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Shravan Singh Vs State

Gurcharan Singh Vs State and Anr.

Govind Ram and Anr. Vs State and Anr.