Disposed

Chetan Das v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2018CRLMP/2177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This complete judgment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directs the trial court to give the petitioner one opportunity to lead defence evidence to prove his parentage (claiming Arjun Das as father) against a civil court decree alleging Khushhal Singh. It also mandates conclusion of proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to afford petitioner one opportunity to lead defence evidence regarding parentage and to conclude proceedings within three months.

Chetan Das Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2177/2018

Chetan Das

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj And Anr

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP & Mr. Parth Sarthi Sandu

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

Order

¶11

16/07/2018

¶12

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, be directed to decide the matter in consonance with the observations made by appellate court, which in appeal has remitted the matter to the trial court to decide the complaint filed by respondent No.2 afresh.

¶13

This court on 23.04.2018 while issuing notice had

¶14

passed the following order”-

¶15

“Counsel for the petitioner has contended that appellate court below had remitted the matter to the trial court on the ground that parentage of the accused-petitioner is required to be proved.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that no opportunity was extended to the petitioner to prove the parentage on the ground that there is no specific direction given by the appellate court below.

¶17

Issue notice to the respondents for 16.07.2018. Meanwhile, further proceedings arsing out of impugned FIR shall remain stayed.”

¶18

[CRLMP-2177/2018]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute regarding the parentage of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is son of Arjun Das whereas complainant has alleged that he is son of Khushhal Das. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Para 11 of judgment Annx.3 rendered by appellate court and said para reads as under”-

¶21

“ fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd ifjoknh ds dFkuksa ds nkSjku fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ij fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Øe&7] t;iqj egkuxj ds le{k yfEcr jgs flfoy okn la[;k&117@2007 xksikyyky cuke psrunkl ds tokc nkos o mDr tokc nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= dks Øe’k% izn’kZ ih&6 o izn’kZ ih&7 ds :i esa fnukad 25-06-2015 dks iznf’kZr djk;k x;k gSA ftl oknkSÙkj ds LkR;kiu o 'kiFk&i= esa vfHk;qDr ds firk dk uke [kq’kgkynkl vafdr gSA blds [k.Mu esa vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh izfrj{kk lk{; ds nkSjku Lo;a ds jk’kudkMZ] vk/kkjdkMZ o oksVj vkbZMh dkMZ dh izfr;kW izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftuesa vfHk;qDr ds firk dk uke vtqZunkl vafdr gSA bl vihy ds vfHkys[k ij vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls mijksDr flfoy okn esa Mh-M-&1 ds :i esa Lo;a ds dFku dh izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlesa vfHk;qDr us vius firk dk uke vtqZunkl gksuk crk;k x;k gS o izfrijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k fd oknkSÙkj esa mlds firk dk uke [kq’kgkynkl xyr vafdr fd;k gqvk gSA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ckcr dh xbZ cgl esa ;g rdZ mBk;k x;k Fkk fd mlds firk dk uke [kq’kgkynkl u gksdj vtqZunkl gS] ftl ckcr fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vk{ksfir fu.kZ; esa dksbZ Li"V fofu’p; ugha fn;k gS o vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls mBk;k x;k mDr rdZ vuqÙkfjr jgk gSA ”

¶22

Mr. Parth Sarthi Sandu, appearing for respondents has

¶23

submitted that petitioner has filed present application to delay the proceedings as necessary documents are already on the record, including judgment and decree of the civil court and from the such

¶24

[CRLMP-2177/2018]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

documents, it is discernible that Khushhal Singh is father of the petitioner.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said documents have not been proved by the petitioner and accepted by the complainant respondent No.2, therefore, in terms of the order passed by Appellate Court an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to prove that Arjun Das is his father.

¶28

After hearing counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of, and by directing trial court to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in defence regarding his parentage. To allay the apprehension of the counsel for complainant respondent No.2 that petitioner is delaying the trial, a further direction is issued to the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

The trial court shall fix one day, to enable the petitioner to lead defence evidence to prove the factum that Arjun Das is his father. Petitioner shall lead all evidence at his own cost risk and responsibility. Trial court shall fix the date for defence evidence on one day and in case, on the said day, evidence of the petitioner is not recorded, trial court shall fix the case for the next day for conclusion of the defence evidence to be led by the accused petitioner.

¶30

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶31

Heena/07

Chetan Das v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Das v. State of Raj 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

Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan Khadi and Gramodyog Board Vs Enforcement Officer Provident Fund

Mojika Appliance Private Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Naresh Saraswat S/O Mahesh Chand B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokendra Singh S/O Sangram Singh B/C Rajput Vs Prahlad Singh S/O Heer Singh B/C Rajput