Dismissed

Ratan Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2019CRLR/1134/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order refusing to take cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against two respondents. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's detailed order and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition and stay petition dismissed. The trial court's order not taking cognizance against respondents 2 and 3 upheld.

Ratan Singh Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1134/2019

¶3

Ratan Singh S/o Shri Mag Siingh, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Deh, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶7

Ramniwas S/o Aidanaram, By Caste Jat, R/o Deh, Tehsil Jayal, Nagaur.

¶8

Jhumar Ram S/o Aidanaram, By Caste Jat, R/o Deh, Tehsil Jayal, Nagaur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kan Singh Oad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan, PP Mr.L.S.Jakhaniya, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Order

¶13

08/11/2019

¶14

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitionercomplainant against the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur in Criminal Case No.113/2018, whereby the trial court partly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitionercomplainant and has not taken the cognizance against the respondent No.2-Ramniwas and respondent No.3-Jhumar Ram.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there are ample evidence against both the respondents but the learned trial court has not taken cognizance against them. The order impugned to the said extent is per se illegal.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the private respondents argued that there is no connecting evidence against respondents No.2 & 3, Ramniwas and Jhumar Ram. Initially, after thorough investigation, the police submitted a Final Report and the trial court also considered the material evidence and has rightly not taken cognizance against the respondents No.2 & 3. In these circumstances, the order impugned does not require any interference.

¶18

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the material available on record.

¶19

The trial court after considering the evidence on record as well as the statement of PW-1 Nain Singh has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. qua the respondent Nos.2 & 3 by a detailed order. I find no illegality and perversity in the order impugned passed by the trial court.

¶20

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.

¶21

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

Ratan Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Singh v. State

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

Jabbar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd.Arif Vs State and Anr.

Rajvardhan Vaishnav Vs State and Anr.

Kishan Lal Vs State and Anr.

Dhima Ram Bishnoi Vs State

Prakashdas Vs State of Rajasthan