Dismissed

Gyan Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2019CRLMP/5492/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for extension of stay and quashed the petition challenging conviction orders under Section 397 Cr.P.C., holding that second revision is barred and the case does not warrant inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Misc. Petition seeking quashing of impugned orders dismissed; Stay application stands disposed.

Gyan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5492/2014

¶3

Gyan Singh S/o Vodan,

¶4

Man Singh, S/o Vodan,

¶5

Jagdev S/o Hansu,

¶6

Rajesh S/o Man Singh,

¶7

All by caste Gurjar, R/o Village Mauloni, P.S. Halena, District Bharatpur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan through PP.

¶11

Nihal Singh, S/o Sabi, by caste Gurjar, R/o Village Mauloni, P.S. Halena, District Bharatpur.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satyapal Poshwal. For complaianant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Pathak. For State : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶15

Order

¶16

13/08/2019

¶17

The matter comes up on application for extension of stay order.

¶18

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage.

¶19

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2014 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur by which revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and order dated 24.08.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Weir, Bharatpur taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners was confirmed.

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMP-5492/2014]

¶22

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that Court below has not discussed the negative final report and only on the basis of statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance against the petitioners. It is also contended petitioner No.4 is a Government employee and his name has been included to put pressure on the petitioners. One person in the petitioner’s party already died in the incident. It is also contended that in the FIR lodged by the accused-petitioner’s party, complainant and other co-accused have been convicted for offence under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on “Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. RLR 1990(2) page 29, Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. vs. State of Raj. 2006(2) R.C.C. 853, Jaishiv Ram & Ors. State of Raj. 2003(2) R.Cr.D. 566 (Raj.), Gopal Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Anr. 2005(10) RDD 4197 (Raj.).”, wherein High Court has held that while taking cognizance, ground required to discuss the findings of Investigating Agency. After disagrees with the negative final report, a non-speaking order virus of nonapplication of mind.

¶24

Counsel for the complainant has opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that suffered injuries by a sharp weapon and has received four grievous injuries. He was hospitalized on 19.11.2011 and remained in hospital till 03.12.2011. His injury report was available on record. It is also contended that objection that the FIR was not considered by the Court below was taken note of the revisional Court and revisional Court has dealt with the said objection. It is also contended that petitioner has availed remedy

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMP-5492/2014]

¶27

of revision. Second revision is barred under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

I have considered the contentions.

¶29

complainant had suffered grievous injury, which is established from the injury report. He was hospitalized for a period of about fifteen days. His statement and statement of other witnesses point towards the commission of offence. Petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision. It is true that High Court in exceptional cases can invoke the inherent powers. Present is not a case of an exceptional nature, so as to invoke the inherent powers. There being a bar of entertaining the second revision under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

Misc. Petition seeking quashing of impugned orders is therefore, dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.

¶31

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶32

CHANDAN /28

Gyan Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Singh and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rewati Vs Ramji Lal

Smt Shikha Bansal and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Surajmal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sultan Singh Meena and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P. and Anr.

Gagan Singh Solanki and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp