This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged the lower court's order quashing the accused's right to be executed. The petition argued that the High Court erred in quashing the notice to the employer for terminating the accused's employment. The bench, however, held that the High Court acted within its powers.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2035/2014
Radhe Shyam Sharma son of Shri Mangal Chand Sharma, aged about 50 years, Resident of Gems Colony, Sector No. 3, Viddyadhar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
----Complainant-Respondents
vkns'k fnukad% 06-08-2020
ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh lrh’k dqekj 'kekZ
Jh ts ih xkxsZ] vf/koDrk& ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj lsA Jh fj;klr vyh] yksd vfHk;kstd okLrs jkT;A
;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr ;g ;kfpdk U;k;ky; egkuxj eftLVªsV dze&14] t;iqj egkuxj }kjk QkStnkjh izdj.k la[;k 1167@12 muokuh esaVksj bafM;k fy- cuke jk/ks’;ke 'kekZ esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 28-01-14 ls O;fFkr gksdj is’k dh xbZ gS] ftlds }kjk ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 311 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA
geus fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA
fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh nyhysa gSa fd ifjoknh dEiuh us ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk lEiw.kZ _.k jkf’k pqdkus ds ckn ,u-vks-lh- tkjh dj nh Fkh] ysfdu U;k;ky; us igys rks ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh yksu laca/kh
-2-
i=koyh eaxkus dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt dj fn;k vkSj fQj mldh vksj ls /kkjk 311 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr dEiuh ds funs’kdksa dks ryc djus gsrq izLrqr izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k tcfd mudh lk{; izdj.k ds U;k;iw.kZ fofuf’p; ds fy, vko’;d gSA ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
vkyksP; vkns’k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd ;kph&vfHk;qDr dks viuh izfrj{kk esa ifjoknh dEiuh dh vksj ls tkjh ,u-vks-lh- U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus dk fodYi jgk gSA /kkjk 313¼5½ n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr Hkh ;kph&vfHk;qDr dks vius fyf[kr vfHkdFku is’k djus dk fodYi jgk gSA mlus iwoZ esa vf/kjksfir gtsZ dh vnk;xh Hkh ugha dh gSA mlds }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks foyfEcr djus dk iz;kl yxrh gS ftls [kkfjt djus esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us dksbZ xyrh ugha dh gS] ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
¼lrh’k dqekj 'kekZ½ U;k;kf/kifr
feRry@133
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Courts has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the accused's notice to terminate employment without terminating the proceedings against the employer.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to reinstate the accused and direct issuance of notice under Section 313 CrPC in the employer against the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Ramanatha Aiyar v. State of MadrasReferred¶18
P. Ramanatha Aiyar v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 269 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Radhe Shyam Sharma
State of Rajasthan
M/s Mentor India Ltd.
S.B. Sharma
M.M. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
