Dismissed

Satpal Yadav S/O Shri Sardar Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2023CRLMP/2020/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Honble High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of family court proceedings and certain criminal charges. The bench held that the application could not be disposed of on merits as critical facts required to be ascertained by a fair and just trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; Family Court Order passed in CrlMP 42/2022 was upheld; proceedings based on IPC sections were maintained.

Satpal Yadav S/O Shri Sardar Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:20604]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2020/2023

¶4

Satpal Yadav S/o Shri Sardar Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. 13 Sidhdhi Avenue, Ganpati Nagar Vistar, Sogariya Kota Presentaly R/o 566, Ganpati Arg, Near Of Emanuyal School, Dadwada Kota Junction, Kota Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Smt. Priyanka Yadav D/o Shri Ramprasad Yadav W/o Satpal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Ro Kaliya Hoda Police Station Behror District Alwar At Present R/o House No. 13 Sidhdhi Avenue, Ganpati Nagar Extension, Sogariya Police Station Railway Colony Kota.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv. For : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP Respondent(s)

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

02/09/2023

¶14

1- ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ifjokfn;k&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls efgyk iqfyl Fkkuk&dksVk 'kgj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k&349@2021 vijk/k vUrxZr

¶15

[2023:RJ-JP:20604]

¶16

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2020/2023]

¶17

/kkjk 498,] 406] 323 Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA

¶18

2- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd izR;FkhZ dze&2@ifjokfn;k }kjk vius ifr vFkkZr ;kph ds fo:) lEifRr ds fookn dks ysdj o"kZ 2021 esa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn flfoy U;k;ky;] dksVk esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa lQyrk ugha feyus dh fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, fookg ds nl o"kZ i'pkr feF;k vk/kkjksa ij ngst dh ekax djus o izrkMuk vkfn ds vkjksi esa orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd ,d vU; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 42@2022 iqfyl Fkkuk&Hkhexate.Mh ftyk&dksVk 'kgj esa ifjokfn;k }kjk ntZ djk;h x;h gS ftlesa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk fxjQ~rkjh ij jksd ds laca/k esa vUrfje vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS] var esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶19

3- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, tkfgj fd;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSa] mijksDr vkjksiksa vFkok bl ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ds laca/k esa vHkh vafre fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk] ;g vuqla/[email protected] dk fo"k; gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶20

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

[2023:RJ-JP:20604]

(3 of 5)

[CRLMP-2020/2023]

5- orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ifjokfn;k }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds ek/;e ls ;g vkjksi yxk;k gS fd fnukad 31-10-2021 dks mlds ifr rFkk ifr ds ifjtu }kjk ifjokfn;k ds lkFk ekjihV dh rFkk mldk L=h/ku lksus&pkanh ds tsojkr vkfn Nhu fy;sA

¶25

6- 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 O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

¶26

"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 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."

¶27

7- blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk (2002) 1 SCC 555 Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

[2023:RJ-JP:20604]

[CRLMP-2020/2023]

(4 of 5)

"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie discolse the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."

¶32

8- mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd vuqla/kku dh LVst ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksi rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fy, x;s cpko o vU; lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vkfn ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok laf{kIr fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA orZeku ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gksa] ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ U;k;ky;hu izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx djus gsrq ntZ djk;h x;h gks] ,slk Li"V ekeyk ugha gS rFkk yxk;s x;s vkjksi vius vki esa vlaHkkO; gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls tks cpko fy;s x;s gSa] os vuqla/kku dk fo"k; gks ldrs gSa rFkk ;fn vkjksi i= izLrqr gksrk gS rks cpko lk{; ds le; lqlaxr gks ldrs gSaA vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ek= vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx la;r rjhds ls o iw.kZ lko/kkuh ds lkFk

¶33

visf{kr gSA lkekU; :i ls tc rd lqn`< vk/kkj ugha gksa] vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶34

9- mijksDr foospkukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶35

10ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

¶36

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶37

Mittal /570

Satpal Yadav S/O Shri Sardar Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Yadav S/O Shri Sardar Singh, 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

Beena Golada D/O Shri Shankar Lal Golada, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aman Ansari S/O Ashfak Ansari Vs State of Rajasthan

Shoyab @ Unda S/O Kamal Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Harpal Son of Jagmal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Vaishnav D/O Shri Gopal Vaishnav, Vs State of Rajasthan

Manraj S/O Kistura Vs State of Rajasthan