Quashed

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

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2021CRLMP/779/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reduced the scope of a criminal revision under Section 498, 406 IPC. Reversing the lower court's quashing of an acquittal, it limited the scope to review only three accused and quashed the order admitting those three, directing their acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The order admitting three accused respondents to trial was quashed and the accused were directed to be acquitted.

Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 779/2016

¶3

1- Pratap Singh S/o Shri Harpal Singh, aged about 36 years 2- Harpal Singh S/o Shri Durga Singh aged about 67 years 3- Smt. Munni Devi @ Shashibala W/o Shri Harpal Singh aged about 58 years

¶4

4- Smt. Lalita Kanwar D/o Shri Harpal Singh aged about 28 years

¶5

5- Rani Kanwar D/o Shri Harpal Singh aged about 25 years 6- Radha Kanwar D/o Shri Harpal Singh aged about 24 years All R/o D-55, Ma Karninagar, Maharana Pratap Marg, behind Karni Palace, Panchyawala, Police Station Karnivihar, Jaipur (Raj)

¶6

----Accused-Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1- State Of Rajasthan And Anr

¶9

2- Smt. Hemlata Kanwar W/o Shri Pratap Singh at Present R/o Tibapotli, Police Station, Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena, For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mr. R.S. Tanwar

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

¶13

Order

¶14

06/08/2021

¶15

;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr ;g ;kfpdk fuxjkuh U;k;ky;] vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] dze&11] t;iqj egkuxj }kjk QkStnkjh fuxjkuh la[;k&67@2014 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-12-2015 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh xbZ gS] ftlds }kjk mUgkasus fuxjkuh [kkfjt djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 498, o 406

¶16

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-779/2016]

¶17

Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa vkjksi fojfpr djus ds vkns”k fnukad 07-07-2014 dh iqf’V dh gSA

¶18

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k dh nyhysa gSa fd izR;FkhZ&ifjokfn;k us /kkjk 498, o 406 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vUrxZr is”k dh xbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vius ifr vkSj mlds lHkh ?kjokyksa dks fyIr dj fn;k gSA iqfyl us lHkh ds f[kykQ xyr rjhds ls pkyku is”k dj fn;k gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us Hkh izR;FkhZ&ifjokfn;k ds ifr] lkl] llqj vkSj rhuksa u.knksa ds f[kykQ vkjksi fojfpr dj fn;s gSaA fo}ku fuxjkuh U;k;ky; us Hkh ekeys ij lgh rjhds ls fopkj ugha fd;k gS ,oa ljljh rkSj ij fuxjkuh [kkfjt dj nh gSA ;g ;kfpdk lHkh ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls is”k dh xbZ gS] ysfdu izkjEHk esa gh izR;FkhZ&ifjokfn;k ds ifr] lkl vkSj llqj dh gn rd ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt gks pqdh gSA vc ;g ;kfpdk flQZ ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k&4 yxk;r 6 dh vksj ls yafcr gSA

¶19

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k&4 yxk;r 6 izR;FkhZ&ifjokfn;k dh u.knsa gSa] ftuesa ls ,d ?kVuk ds le; fookfgr Fkh vkSj nks vfookfgr gSaA bu rhuksa ds f[kykQ dksbZ fof”k’B vkjksi ugha gSaA mUgsa feF;k rkSj ij fyIr dj fn;k x;k gSA buds f[kykQ dksbZ ekeyk ugha curk gSA ;s rhuksa gh vkjksfir vijk/k ls mUeksfpr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSaA mUgksaus vius leFkZu esa U;k; n`’VkUr (2012) 10 SCC 741 Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. is”k fd;kA

¶20

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd vkSj fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjokfn;k us ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djr s gq, dgk gS fd ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k&4 yxk;r 6 ds f[kykQ Hkh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vkjksi vafdr gSa vkSj c;kuksa esa Hkh mudk uke vk;k gS] blfy;s vkjksi fojfpr djus ds vkns”k ds fo:) is”k dh xbZ ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

¶21

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;k; n`’VkUr esa izfrikfnr fof/kd fLFkfr ,oa nksuksa i{kksa dh nyhyksa ds lanHkZ esa i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij Li’V gS fd ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k Jherh yfyrk daoj] jkuh daoj ,oa jk/kk daoj rhuksa gh izR;FkhZ&ifjokfn;k dh u.knsa gSaA muds f[kykQ

¶22

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-779/2016]

¶23

izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ;k c;kuksa esa dgha Hkh dksbZ fof”k’B vk{ksi ugha gSaA bl rF; ij lgh rjhds ls xkSj ugha gks ik;k gS] vr% bu rhuksa dh lhek rd izLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶24

ifj.kker% ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k la[;k&4 yxk;r 6 dh gn rd izLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa muds fo:) yafcr vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh fujLr dh tkrh gS ,oa mUgsa vkjksfir vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 498, o 406 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ls mUeksfpr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶25

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J

¶26

Pradeep Thawani /27

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap 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

Kamal Kant Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Pradeep Mittal S/O Late Shri Anand Shankar Mittal Vs State of Rajasthan

Stephen Singh S/O Late Shri A.B. Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Raj Kanwar and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Onkarmal Khichar S/O Late Shri Dhanna Ram Khichad Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramavtar S/O Shri Goverdhan Vs State Bank of India