Ram Phool v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In a criminal revision, the High Court quashed an order by the Sessions Court taking cognizance against a petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Court held that Section 319 cannot apply to a person who is already an accused and was subsequently discharged.
What did the court decide?
The order dated 12.04.2007 taken under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 421/2007
Ram Phool, S/o Shri Pratap, B/c Meena, R/o Village Dhani, Teeba Wali, Tan Khori, P.S. Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
- State of Rajasthan through PP
----Non-petitioner
- Pushpendra Kumar Meena, S/o Shri Bhonri Lal, B/c Meena, R/o Village Caste Meena, R/o Village Dhani Tiba Wali, Tan Khori, P.S. Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Complainant-Non-petitioner
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP Mr. Vijay Singh for Mr. B.S. Chauhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to take cognizance against a person who was already an accused and subsequently discharged by the trial court.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to quash the order of cognizance taken under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against a discharged accused.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Ram Phool
- respondent
State of Rajasthan
- respondent
Pushpendra Kumar Meena
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/421/2007
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court