Dismissed

Virendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Jai Shiv Singh Shekhawat, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2022CRLMP/8190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that condoning a delay of two years requires showing sufficient cause. Petitioner showed strong cause due to victim's threats and inability to move. Court found no sufficient cause for petitioners to challenge the quashing order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as High Court cannot conduct mini-trial in such petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the impugned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed with costs.

Virendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Jai… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8190/2022

¶3

Virendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Jai Shiv Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Hardas Ka Bass, Police Ajit Garh Teshil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

The Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur (West), Jaipur.

¶8

The Station House Officer, Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur.

¶9

Rakhi Sharma W/o Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, P.no. D-77, Mangalam City Kalwad Road, Police Station Kardhani Jaipur (West), Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Gausingha For : Mr. Shyam Prakash Sharma, PP Respondent(s) Mr. Sehban Naqvi

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

02/12/2022

¶15

;kph@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ;g ;kfpdk ifjokfn;k dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&>ksVokMk] t;iqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 762@2022 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 306 Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk is'k dh gSA

¶16

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-8190/2022]

¶17

fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd vfHk;qDr rFkk erd osnizdk'k ds chp ek= ysunsu dk fookn Fkk rFkk ;fn vR;f/kd dtZ ds ncko ls erd us vkRegR;k dh gS rks mlds fy, vfHk;qDr nkf;Rok/khu ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa dksbZ vijk/k ds rRo vFkok vkijkf/kd vk'k; izdV ugha gks jgs gSa] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s&

¶18

Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2010) 8 SCC 628;

¶19

Jorubhal Amrubhal Varu Vs. State of Gujrat 2020 SCC Online Guj 1189;

¶20

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 427;

¶21

Malkhan & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. 2015 SCC Online MP 3072

¶22

Krishna Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2018 SCC Online Del 11472;

¶23

Damodar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan Manu/RH/0099/2006 &

¶24

Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Vs St. of M.P. in Appeal (Crl) 572/2002 Dt. 01.05.2002

¶25

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd rFkk fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjoknh

¶26

dk rdZ gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vk{ksiksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo Li"V :i ls izdV gks jgs gSa] erd ds lqlkbZM uksV esa Hkh vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kedkus] ijs'kku djus o lEifRr gMius ds Li"V vkjksi gSa rFkk ftl le; erd }kjk dfFkr vkRegR;k dh x;h ml le; ?kVukLFky ds vklikl gh vfHk;qDr ekStwn Fkk vkSj mlds leFkZu esa QksVksxzkQ Hkh izLrqr fd;s gSaA

¶27

[CRLMP-8190/2022]

¶28

(3 of 5)

¶29

fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjoknh dk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd vfHk;qDr dh vijk/k esa fyIrrk dks ns[krs gq, gh fo}ku ls'ku U;k;ky; rFkk mlds i'pkr bl U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;qDr dk vfxze tekur vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;k gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶30

nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶31

gLrxr ekeys esa e`rd dh iRuh }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds ek/;e ls ;g vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz flag us tcju ncko cukdj mldk Q~ysV o xgus fxjoh j[kok fy;s] vk;s fnu C;kt ds iSls ekaxrk gS rFkk mlds ifr rFkk ifjokjtuksa dks ekjus o csbZTtr djus dh /kedh nsrk gSA vfHk;qDr us Ms< djksM :i;s ys fy;sA bl ?kVuk esa lquhy tkafxM] egs'k tSu Hkh 'kkfey gSA mlds ifr dks thrsUnz lSuh] iq:"kksRre lSuh o ccyh vkfn Hkh ijs'kku djrs FksA

¶32

bl izdj.k eas e`rd }kjk lqlkbZM uksV Hkh NksMk gS ftlesa ;g mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd ml ij dkQh dtkZ gS] tks pqdrk ugha dj ik jgk gSA vfHk;qDr us nks lky esa Ms< djksM :i;s izkIr dj fy;s] blds ckotwn ?kj esa ?kqldj ifjokj dks ekjus dh /kedh nsrk gSA mldk Q~ysV Hkh ek= vkB yk[k :i;s esa egs'k tSu ds uke ls fxjoh j[kok fy;kA lquhy tkafxM Hkh feyk gqvk gSA bu yksxksa ds dkj.k ls mls lc dqN NksMuk iM jgk gSA budks ekQ er djukA

¶33

mijksDr lqlkbZM uksV ls Li"V gS fd ek= :i;ksa ds ysunsu dk fookn ugha gS] ysunsu dh ckr dks ysdj vfHk;qDr }kjk vuqfpr o vR;f/kd jkf'k izkIr djus gsrq e`rd

¶34

(4 of 5)

¶35

[CRLMP-8190/2022]

¶36

dks /kedkus] erd o mlds ifjokjtu dks ekjus vkfn dh /kedh lrr :i ls fn;s tkus dk vkjksi gSA erd }kjk ?kVuk ds fnu jsy dh iVfj;ksa ij vkRegR;k fd;s tkus dk vkjksi gSA ifjoknh i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr QksVksxzkQ ds vuqlkj rRle; ?kVukLFky ij e`rd o vfHk;qDr lkFk ns[ks x;s] ftlds laca/k esa Hkh vuqla/kku yafcr gSA

¶37

mijksDr lEiw.kZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, fo}ku ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k o bl U;k;ky; }kjk vfHk;qDr ds vfxze tekur vkosnu [kkfjt fd;s gSa vkSj bl rF; dks nkSjkus cgl vfHk;qDr i{k }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA

¶38

vkjksi ls ;g izFken"V;k izdV gqvk gS fd vfHk;qDr us erd ds lkeus vkRegR;k djus ds fy, ck/;dkjh ifjfLFkfr;ka iSnk dh gS vkSj bl izdkj vkRegR;k ds fy;s nq"izsfjr fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr izdV gqbZ gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar rF;ksa esa fHkUurk ds dkj.k ls gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA

¶39

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ds iSjk la[;k*07 esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%&

¶40

"7.Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage

¶41

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-8190/2022]

¶42

and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."

¶43

mijksDrkuqlkj Li"V gS fd /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, bl LVst ij miyC/k lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vFkok Lohdk;Zrk ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA tc rd lqn`< vk/kkj ugha gksa] rc rd vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶44

bl izdkj /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkdj mijksDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶45

ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA

¶46

fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vuqla/kku ds i'pkr vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksi i= is'k gksrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa bl vkns'k esa izdV vfHker ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk izdj.k dk fopkj.k fof/k&vuqlkj lEikfnr fd;k tkosA

¶47

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶48

Murari Lal Sharma /159

Virendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Jai Shiv Singh Shekhawat, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Jai Shiv Singh Shekhawat, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aashish Bindal S/O Shri Damodar Bindal, Vs Minakshi Bindal W/O Aashish Bindal

Anil Aggarwal S/O Jaganath Aggarwal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh Rawat S/O Shri Biram Singh Rawat, Vs Suresh Chand Chauhan S/O Shri Yashodanand Chauhan

Harbans Singh Guleriya and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Anguri Devi W/O Late Shri Shyam Lal Vs State of Rajasthan