Dismissed

Gokul Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2018CRLR/1908/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order setting aside a Magistrate's cognizance order. The Court found no ground for interference, noting that the revisional court appropriately set aside the order due to non-consideration of a pending negative final report.

What did the court decide?

Petition for revision dismissed; order dated 26.09.2017 upholding the Magistrate's order restored.

Gokul Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1908 / 2017

¶3

Gokul Singh S/o Babusingh B/c Thakur, R/o Nagla, Darvesha, PS Basedi.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

Brijbhan Singh S/o Harisingh B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶8

Kullu S/o Ramprasad B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶9

Shivkumar @ Matru S/o Ramprasad B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶10

Toransingh S/o Harisingh B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶11

Pohapsingh S/o Harisingh B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶12

Jaypal S/o Parmanand B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶13

Ranjeet S/o Parmanand B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶14

Nathi S/o Parmanand B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶15

Deepu S/o Deshraj B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶16

Dhansingh S/o Badrisingh B/c Thakuran, R/o Nagla Darvesha, PS Basedi, District Dholpur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal

¶19

For State : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek-P.P.

¶20

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Order

22/01/2018

(2 of 3)

[CRLR-1908/2017]

Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sections 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 26.09.2017, whereby Court of revision had set aside the cognizance order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the Magistrate.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused were not required to be heard by the Magistrate, at the time of passing of the cognizance order. There was dealy in filing the revision petition, but the same had not been considered by the Court of revision.

¶27

In the present case, vide order dated 02.02.2015, Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 323, 147, 452, 504 IPC on a private complaint filed by the petitioner. It has been noticed by the Court of revision that in FIR lodged by the petitioner with regard to the same occurrence, a negative final report had been submitted by the Investigasting Agency. The said report was also pending before the same Court. However, instead of clubbing the pivate complaint and the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency, Magisterate had ordered the summoning of the accused in the private complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶28

Learned Court of reivision rightly held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as the negative final report submitted by the Investigasting Agency in FIR got registered by the petitioner with regard to incident dated 14.08.2013 was liable to be considered with the private complaint in question with regard to the incident dated 14.08.2013.

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CRLR-1908/2017]

¶31

Accused could not be said to be aware of the order passed by the trial Court as it was passed in their absence and the revision petition was filed by the accused on coming to know about the order passed by the Magistrate.

¶32

Admittedly, the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 had been passed in the prsence of the petitioner.

¶33

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is made out.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

(SABINA)J.

¶36

Sudha/70

Gokul Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Meenu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Yogesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sitaram Gautam Vs Smt Sonu Gautamand Anr.

Bhanwarlal Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Kana @ Kana Ram Vs State

Ramesingh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P