Disposed

Budh Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Mar 2022CRLMP/340/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court converted arrest warrants to summons and directed petitioners to file a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. without interfering with the taking of cognizance, citing the trial court's procedural irregularity.

What did the court decide?

Arrest warrants converted to summons; petitioners directed to file revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

Budh Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Criminal Misc Petition No. 340/2022

¶3

Budh Ram S/o Ram Pratap Bishnoi, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, 4C, Raisinghnagar, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Jarnel Singh S/o Labh Singh, R/o Chak 2 Ps, Tehsil Padampur At Present 33 Friends Bank Colony, Sri Ganganagar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

(2) S.B. Criminal Misc Petition No. 4802/2021

¶11

Karnail Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh, Aged About 66 Years, 2 P.s. (Dhani), Tehsil Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶12

Gagandeep Singh S/o Sh. Karnail Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 2 P.s. (Dhani), Tehsil Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶16

Sh. Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh, Aged About 61 Years, 2 P.s., Padampur, At Present R/o 33, Friends Bank Colony, Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶17

Narendrapal Singh S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 3 P.s. Tehsil Raisinghnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶18

Devendrajeet Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 2 P.s. (Dhani), Tehsil Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

¶19

Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh, Aged About 65 Years, 2 P.s. (Dhani), Tehsil Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.). (Deseased).

¶20

Kishanlal S/o Sh. Badlu Ram, W.no. 18, Raisinghnagar, Stamp Distributor, Kachahari, Raisinghnagar.

¶21

Meetpal Singh S/o Sh. Bhanwarlal, Raisinghnagar, Presently Working As Typist, Kachahari, Raisinghnagar.

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CRLMP-340/2022]

¶24

Buddhram S/o Sh. Rampratap Bishnoi, W.no. 21 4 C, Raisinghnagar, Advocate And Notary Public, Raisinghnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar.

¶25

Swarnjeet Singh S/o Sh. Labh Singh, Aged About 46 Years, 2 P.s. (Dhani), Tehsil Padampur, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Madhu Khatri Mr. S. R. Godara

¶30

: Mr. A. R. Choudhary, P. P. Mr. Aidan Choudhary for Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari

¶31

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶32

02/03/2022

¶33

By way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have assailed the order dated 24.08.2021, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padampur, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offences under Sections 255, 420, 464, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B IPC and they have been called to appear by way of issuing arrest warrant.

¶34

Mr. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection that against the impugned order taking cognizance, the petitioners have directly approached this Court without first availing remedy under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayed that the petitioners be asked to avail remedy of revision in accordance with law.

¶35

At this juncture, Mr. Balia, leaned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order not only suffers from apparent illegality but also from a fundamental lacuna

¶36

(3 of 4)

¶37

[CRLMP-340/2022]

¶38

inasmuch as the trial Court has issued arrest warrant to the petitioners without resorting to normal provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶39

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm view that the trial Court was not justified in issuing arrest warrant to the petitioners. Such approach is not only against the spirit of provisions of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also against the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and by this Court. [Re (2007) 12 SCC Page 1 : Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttranchal]

¶40

Though not inclined to interfere in this case, so far as taking of cognizance is concerned, this Court feels that petitioners are entitled to a limited indulgence, that the arrest warrants issued against them deserve to be converted to summons.

¶41

Hence, the criminal misc. petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24.08.2021 on or before 31.03.2022.

¶42

The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing or by 25.03.2022, whichever is later.

¶43

In case the petitioners file revision petition along with the stay application, the Revisional Court shall decide the same in accordance with law taking into account the period lapsed during pendency of present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which were filed on 17.01.2022 and 04.09.2021 respectively.

¶44

Stay applications are also disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶46

21-A.Arora/-

¶47

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-340/2022]

Budh Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budh Ram 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

The State of Rajasthan Vs Munki Poonia

State of Rajasthan Vs Meghraj Singh Solanki

The State of Rajasthan Vs Pavan Meena

Jalam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Aisa @ Mamka Vs State of Rajasthan

Kshamata Vs State of Rajasthan