The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order closing the petitioner's opportunity to produce defence evidence, finding insufficient merit due to the petitioner's conduct and delay.
The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed as it lacks merit.
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(Pet.) No. 1017/2018
Girvar Raj S/o Shri Takhatraj, Age 72 years, B/c Oswal (Bhansali) R/o 2 (k) 34, Ist Pulia, Chopasani Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1 Ajay Singh Chouhan S/o Poonam Singh, R/o Sarveshwar Mahadev Mandir, Soonthala, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2 State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahadev Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
10/07/2018
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, (NI Act Cases No.6), Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as ‘the court below’) in Criminal Complaint No.43/2016 (Ajay Singh vs. Girvar Raj), whereby the court below has closed the opportunity of the petitioner to produce his evidence in defence.
The court below has observed that sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner to produce the defence evidence earlier and on 06.12.2017 last opportunity was granted to him but despite that the petitioner has failed to produce defence evidence, therefore, opportunity to produce the same is closed.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-1017/2018]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the matter was fixed for producing defence evidence since 26.11.2016 and thereafter the petitioner has moved several applications before the trial court which have been rejected by it. He has also submitted that after passing of the impugned order, again the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., however, the same has been dismissed by the trial court.
Taking into consideration the above facts, particularly the fact the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity before the trial court to produce his evidence in defence and looking to the conduct of the petitioner of moving subsequent applications, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition as it seems that the petitioner is interested in delaying the matter before the trial court.
In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Taruna
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the closure of defence evidence opportunity by the trial court has merit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Girvar Raj
Ajay Singh Chouhan
State of Rajasthan
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
