Disposed

Mayank Kumar Devedi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2022CRLMP/1034/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings for attempt to commit suicide initiated by an FIR. The court held that since charges had not yet been framed by the trial court, it was not appropriate to quash the matter at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to raise grounds before the trial court at the stage of framing charges.

Mayank Kumar Devedi Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1034/2022

¶4

Mayank Kumar Devedi S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Behind The Police Station, Pindwara, Tehsil And Police Station, Pindwara, Dist. Sirohi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Kishore Puri S/o Babu Puri, B/c Goswami, R/o J.j. Colony, Pindwara, Police Station Pindwara, Dist. Sirohi.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, PP

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/04/2022

¶14

By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashment of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.2/2022, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pindwara, Sirohi pursuant to FIR No.80/2021, registered at P.S. Pindwara, District Sirohi for the offence punishable under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Inviting Court’s attention towards the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer, as recorded in the factual report, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the petitioner had, in any manner, instigated the girl to commit suicide.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-1034/2022]

¶18

He argued that merely because the petitioner has got engaged with another girl, cannot be a reason to infer or conclude that the petitioner is, in any manner, guilty of offence under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that since the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, has filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and has found that offence punishable under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, this Court cannot re-appraise the evidence on record and quash the proceedings, particularly when, even the charges are yet to be framed by the trial Court.

¶20

In the facts of the present case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage because, even the charges are yet to be framed by the competent Court. 6. Without pronouncing upon the petitioner’s contention, the instant petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds and cite judgments in his favour and put forth all the submissions before the trial Court, at the stage of framing charges.

¶21

This Court is sure that the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law before proceeding to frame charges (if any).

¶22

Needless to observe that petitioner’s rights to challenge the order framing charges shall stand reserved, as this Court has not pronounced upon merit of petitioner’s contentions.

¶23

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶25

187-skm/-

Mayank Kumar Devedi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Kumar Devedi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poonam Vs State of Rajasthan

Makhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lehri Lal Suthar Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State

Bharta Ram Vs State of Rajasthan