Dismissed

Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2018CRLMP/1420/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the framing of charges for offences under various IPC sections. Finding the trial had commenced and material witness evidence recorded, the Court refused interference but directed the production of remaining police witnesses.

What did the court decide?

No interference warranted; order framed charges affirmed. Direction issued to produce three remaining police officials before the trial court.

Manju Devi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1420/2018

¶3

Manju Devi Wife Of Shri Pappuram, By Caste Gurjar , Resident Of Village Talchera, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

11/07/2018

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 25.3.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nadbai, District Bharatpur, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

¶13

The order framing charge was assailed before the revisional court below. The said court on 15.2.2018 had dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order framing charges. Thereafter, the present petition was filed on 13.4.2018. It was listed before this Court on 16.4.2018. On second call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and this Court had to adjourn the matter for 11.7.2018. The order dated 16.4.2018 reads as under:-

¶14

“On second call, none is present on behalf of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 11.07.2018.”

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-1420/2018]

¶17

It is admitted fact that out of seven witnesses, four witnesses namely Ghanshyam Joshi, Chetram Verma, Shaukat Ali and Kusumlata Sharma have been examined. Only three police officials who had participated in then investigation remain to be examined.

¶18

It is settled legal position that once the trial has commenced, it has to result into conviction or acquittal. The judicial propriety demands that when the trial court is seized of the matter, and evidence of the material witensses have been recorded, this Court in the midst of trial should not cause interference. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶19

Considering that only three police official witnesses remain to be examined, a direction is issued to the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur to produce three police officials before the trial court on the next date.

¶20

Copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and necessary compliance.

¶21

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶22

Mak/-

Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Devi 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

Sitaram Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Pista Soni Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Raju Jangid Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Thaker Singh S/O Shri Gurumukh Singh B/C Raisikh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Shimla Devi Vs State of Raj and Ors.