Dismissed

Atul Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2022CRLMP/6495/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan rejected a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the impugned order framing charges. The court observed the order was without reasons but held the remedy lay elsewhere, granting liberty to file a revision petition instead, and disposed of a concurrent stay application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a revision petition against the order framing charges dated 06.07.2022.

Atul Kumar Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 2)

¶2

[CRLMP-6495/2022]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S. B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 6495/2022

¶5

Atul Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Goyal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o B-02, Krishna Apartment, Sirssa, Hariyana.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, P.P.

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶12

11/10/2022

¶13

By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar pursuant to F.I.R. No. 124 dated 11.05.2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

While inviting Court’s attention towards the order framing charges dated 06.07.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the date of granting bail itself, the trial court has framed charges.

¶15

It was argued that F.I.R. was registered only under the provisions of Sections 498-A & 323 of I.P.C. and even in absence of allegations about withholding of stridhan or dowry articles constituting offence under Section 406 of I.P.C., not only the

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-6495/2022]

¶18

charge-sheet was filed, even the trial court has framed charge for offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C.

¶19

It was argued that the petitioner has produced various evidences before the Investigating Officer, which unraveled that the conduct of complainant was inappropriate and the matrimonial dispute arose because of the betrayal of the complainant and her involvement/relationship with one Sunny Sethi, but those vital evidence has been ignored by the Investigating Officer.

¶20

Heard and perused the record. 6. It was argued by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner that before the petitioner could move appropriate application before the trial court for issuing appropriate directions for further investigation, the trial court has proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner and thus, the petitioner was practically left with no other remedy.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, though, this Court is of the view that the order framing charges is without any reasons and has been passed in hot haste, but feels that the remedy lies somewhere else.

¶22

While refusing to entertain the present petition, the petitioner is given liberty to file revision petition against the order framing charges dated 06.07.2022, which apparently has been passed without considering the petitioner’s contention.

¶23

With the liberty aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶24

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶26

131-Inder/-

Atul Kumar Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Goyal 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

Naresh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kinger Girish Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Sethia Vs State of Rajasthan

Shera Ram Vs State

Iqbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan