Disposed

Hawa Singh Jakhad and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2018CRLMP/881/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of a CRLM petition where father-and-mother-in-law sought relief from staying bound by revisional court observations while trial court takes fresh cognizance on 498-A IPC offences, directing fresh order and exempting appearance.

What did the court decide?

Trial court to pass fresh order uninfluenced by revisional court observations; personal appearance exempted if represented by counsel.

Hawa Singh Jakhad and Anr. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CRLMP-881/2018]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 881/2018

¶5

Hawa Singh Jakhad S/o Late Shri Fateh Singh Jakhad, B/c Jat, Aged About 64 Years

¶6

Smt. Urmila Jakhad W/o Shri Hawa Singh Jakhad, B/c Jat, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 36, Gouri Nagar Colony, Behind Telephone Exchange, Vaishali Nagar, Police Station Christian Ganj, Ajmer.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶10

Smt. Preeti Choudhary D/o Shri Durgaram Choudhary W/o Anshu Jakhad, B/c Jat, Aged About 28 Years, At Present Residing At Plot No.1 Arvind Nagar, Cbi Colony, Jaipur.

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, Public Prosecutor

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶13

/ Order

¶14

07/03/2018 :

¶15

Instant petition has been preferred by the father-in-law and mother-in-law. They are aggrieved against the order passed by the Revisional Court below, whereby the order passed by the trial Court not to take cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. against the petitioners was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court to decide afresh, whether cognizance of above offences is to be taken against the petitioners or not.

¶16

Succinctly stated, the complainant-respondent No.2 – Smt. Preeti Choudhary had lodged a First Information Report bearing No.162/2015 at Women Police Station Jaipur City (East). During the course of the investigation, Smt. Preeti Choudhary in the statement made had

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-881/2018]

¶19

levelled allegations against her father-in-law and mother-in-law. The Investigating Agency found father-in-law and mother-in-law, petitioners herein to be innocent and no charge-sheet was filed against them. Before the trial Court, it was urged that no specific allegations have been levelled by the complainant-respondent, hence, the proceedings ought to be dropped against the petitioners - father-in-law and mother-in-law. The trial Court rejected the application filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. by the complainant-respondent to take cognizance of above offences against father-in-law and mother-in-law. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant-respondent filed a revision. The revisional Court below, taking into account the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation, had set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the trial Court.

¶20

Mr. G.P. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that while remitting the matter back to the trial Court, the revisional Court below has made observations and, thus, there is no option left with the trial Court, except to summon or take cognizance of offences against the petitioners.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the present petition is disposed of, by observing that the trial Court shall pass a fresh order without influenced by any observations made by the revisional Court below and the trial Court while passing the fresh order shall consider all the pleas raised by the petitioners, who have been directed by the revisional Court below to appear before the trial Court.

¶22

It is further ordered that the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court shall remain exempted, in case they are represented by their Counsel, and the trial Court shall deal with all the pleas raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the detailed speaking order to be passed.

¶23

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-881/2018]

¶26

ashok

Hawa Singh Jakhad and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hawa Singh Jakhad and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjeet Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Puranmal Verma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Hargovind Alias Gomda Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Vidyadhar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Hanuman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mrignayani Jain Vs State of Raj and Anr.