Dismissed

Narendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Late Shri Chittar Singh Shekhawat, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2023CRLMP/2024/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The Court held that conducting a mini-trial to assess evidence at the initial stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was impermissible, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of initial criminal proceedings under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., 498A IPC, and 304B IPC dismissed.

Narendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Late Shri Chittar Singh… — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:33028]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2024/2023

¶4

Narendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Late Shri Chittar Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 1-B-15, Singh Bhumi, Khatipura, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West), Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Smt. Manju Kanwar, W/o Shri Narendra Singh Shekhawat, D/o Late Shri Vijay Singh Tanwar, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 54, Ganesh Colony, Khatipura, Near Jasram Public School, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R B Sharma (Ganthola), Adv. For : Mr. Imran Khan, PP Respondent(s)

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

03/11/2023

¶14

1- ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk efgyk Fkkuk t;iqj if'pe esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 409@22 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 498&,] 406] 323] 341] 504] 509 Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA

¶15

[2023:RJ-JP:33028]

¶16

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2024/2023]

¶17

2- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd okLro esa ifjoknh;k dk vius llqjky ds yksxksa ds lkFk lkSgknZiw.kZ laca/k ugha gS] vk;s fnu fookn djrh gS] ifjoknh;k dh lkl ds }kjk lkoZtfud lwpuk izlkfjr djrs gq, ifjoknh;k dks ikfjokfjd laifRr ls csn[ky dj fn;k x;k gS] ek= ml dkj.k ls ncko cukus ds fy, feF;k vk/kkjksa ij orZeku izFke lwpuk ntZ djok;h x;h gS vkSj var esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

5- orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ifjoknh;k }kjk ;kph@vfHk;qDrx.k tks fd ifjoknh;k ds ifr o muds fj'rsnkj gS] ds fo:) vf/kd ngst dh ekax dks ysdj lrr :i ls ekjihV djus] dwzjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj djus] rkus nsus o ngst ds lkeku ds laca/k esa vkjksi yxk;k x;k gSA ifjoknh;k dk fnukad 26-04-2016 dks fookg ksuk izdV gqvk gSA

¶21

6- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and

[CRLMP-2024/2023]

[2023:RJ-JP:33028]

(3 of 5)

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%&

¶28

"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

[2023:RJ-JP:33028]

[CRLMP-2024/2023]

(4 of 5)

controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."

¶33

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 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

[2023:RJ-JP:33028]

¶36

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2024/2023]

¶37

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

¶38

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶39

Murari Lal Sharma /478

Narendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Late Shri Chittar Singh Shekhawat, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh Shekhawat S/O Late Shri Chittar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khemchand S/O Chandrapal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ritu Goyal D/O Girraja Prasad Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahnoor Bano D/O Sh. Khaju Khan, W/O Sh. Shivraj, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Gangwal Son of Shri Anoop Chand Gangwal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandra Shekhar Son of Shri Pratap Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Ali Raza S/O Mohammad Ali Dad Vs State of Rajasthan