Dismissed

Kalawati W/O Kedar Prasad B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2020CRLMP/5072/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions. The first petition challenging the framing of charges for forgery and other offences was dismissed as trial had not commenced and no interference was called for at this stage. The second petition seeking day-to-day trial was dismissed, citing Supreme Court precedents against judicial directions for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition No. 5358/2019 dismissed; petition No. 5072/2019 seeking day-to-day trial dismissed.

Kalawati W/O Kedar Prasad B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5358/2019

¶3

Savitri Meena W/o Ramraj Meena, B/c Meena, R/o Village Badagaon, Tehsil Nagal Rajawatan, Thana Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Kalawati W/o Kedar Prasad, B/c Meena R/o Village Thikariya Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Panchayat Samiti Lawan, District Dausa.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5072/2019

¶11

Kalawati W/o Kedar Prasad B/c Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Thikaria, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, Panchayat Samiti Lawan, District Dausa, Raj.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶15

Savitri W/o Shri Ramraj B/c Meena, R/o Gram Panchayaat Badagaon, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, Panchayat Samiti Lawan, District Dausa, Raj.

¶16

Giriraj Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop B/c Brahmin, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Doodli Thana, Bassi, District Jaipur, Raj.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Nehpal Yogi on behalf of Mr. Sumit Khandelwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Fateh Ram Meena, PP.
For Complainant	: Mr. Rishi Kumar Sharma, Adv.

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

06/01/2020

(2 of 4)

[CRLMP-5358/2019]

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5358/2019:-

¶25

The petitioner by way of this petition assails the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa Distt. Dausa directing framing of charges against the petitioner under Sections 191, 192, 193, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 125(A) of Public Representative Act, 1951.

¶26

Revision petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Dausa Distt. Dausa vide its order dated 1.8.2019. The same is now, under challenge before this Court in this miscellaneous petition.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the same case, election petition has been filed and in that circumstances the present criminal proceedings could not have been continued. Learned Counsel further submits that the charges have been wrongfully framed and it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed forgery.

¶28

I have considered the submissions of the parties and find that the charges framed against the petitioner are for offences under Section 191, 192, 193, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 125(A) of Public Representative Act, 1951 which are directed to be framed are based on the evidence which has come on record. Trial has yet to commence where petitioner can put up his defence. In view thereof, no interference at this stage is called for.

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[CRLMP-5358/2019]

¶31

Accordingly, the present criminal Misc. petition is

¶32

dismissed.

¶33

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5072/2019:-

¶34

The present petition has been filed by the complainant seeking day-to-day trial.

¶35

This Court is of the firm view that ordinarily higher Courts shall not pass orders for day-to-day trial or for expeditious disposal in matters relating to litigation pending in the trial Court. The view taken by this Court is in conformity with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in P.Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka-(2002) 4 Supreme Court cases 578 wherein it has been held by Supreme Court in para 27 as under:-

¶36

“27. Prescribing periods of limitation at the end of which the trial court would be obliged to terminate the proceedings and necessarily acquit or discharge the accused, and further, making such directions applicable to all the cases in the present and for the future amounts to legislation, which, in our opinion, cannot be done by judicial directives and within the arena of the judicial law-making power available to constitutional courts, howsoever liberally we may interpret Articles 32, 21, 141 and 142 of the Constitution. The dividing line is fine but perceptible. Courts can declare the law, they can interpret the law, they can remove obvious lacunae and fill the gaps but they cannot entrench upon in the field of legislation properly meant for the legislature. Binding directions can be issued for enforcing the law and appropriate directions may issue, including laying down of time limits or chalking out a calendar for proceedings to follow, to redeem the injustice done or for taking care of rights violated, in a given case or set of cases, depending on facts brought to the notice of Court. This is permissible for judiciary to do. But it may not, like legislature, enact a provision akin to or on the lines of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”

¶37

and in the case of Khursheed Ahmad vs. State of Urrat Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary

¶38

No.35524/2019) decided on 04.11.2019 wherein it has been

¶39

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5358/2019]

¶40

held that no order of expeditious hearing ought to be passed by any Court without good and cogent grounds as the same may affect other litigants whose appeals are similarly pending .

¶41

In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed.

¶42

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶43

NAVAL KISHOR /198-199

Kalawati W/O Kedar Prasad B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalawati W/O Kedar Prasad B/C Meena v. State of Rajasthan

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

Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Agarwal S/O Vimlesh Agarwal B/C Mahajan Vs Manish Khandelwal S/O Krishan Khandelwal B/C Mahajan

Neeraj Agarwal S/O Vimlesh Agarwal B/C Mahajan Vs Umashanker Sharma S/O Ghanshyam Sharma B/C Brahmin

Piyush Sharma S/O Shri Rajendra Prasad B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Machhla Devi W/O Shri Lakhmi Chand B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Puranmal S/O Shri Kaluram Saini Vs Sugan Chand S/O Shri Heera Lal