Petitioners challenged framing of charges via s. 482 Cr.P.C. claiming insufficient evidence for s. 354 IPC. Court found prima facie evidence existed, held no interference needed, and dismissed the petition as a barred second revision under s. 397 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Misc. Petition and Stay Petition dismissed.
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. 1238 / 2018
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Trilok Joshi with Mr. Navneet Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia with Mr. Trilok Singh Rathore
Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
11/05/2018
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-1238/2018]
Nagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
The criminal revision petition was preferred on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in criminal case NO.45/17 whereby, the trial court has framed charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447/149, 354/149, 341/149, 323/149 and 147 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no iota of evidence available on record against the petitioners for framing charges for the offences punishable under Section 354/149 IPC. It is contended that the courts below without appreciating the evidence available on record in right percpective has erred in passing the impugned orders.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that prima facie evidence for commission of offences punishable under Section 354/149 IPC is available against the petitioners and therefore, the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after meticulously examining the charge-sheet submitted by the police, I am of the opinion that prima facie evidence is available on record against the petitioner for framing charges for the offences punishable under Section 354/149 IPC.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-1238/2018]
Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned orders.
Moreover, though this criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in fact it is a second revision petition, which is clearly barred under Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Resultantly this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.
Gaurav/13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order framing charges for offences under Section 354 IPC.
Whether a criminal misc. petition u/s 482 CrPC barred when it is effectively a second revision petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurmeet Singh
Balveer Singh
Bindu
Bhupendra Singh
Chhto Ram
The State of Rajasthan
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
