Petitioner challenged dismissal of his revision and protest petition regarding a dispute over land and alleged assault. Court found no illegality or perversity in lower courts' refusal to take cognizance against private respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:37616]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2440/2023
Banshilal S/o Adu Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Vill. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Mundel For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
03/11/2023
Instant misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jayal dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial
[2023:RJ-JD:37616]
[CRLMP-2440/2023]
(2 of 3)
Magistrate, Jayal against the respondents stating therein that on 18.12.2013, he had gone to Jodhpur and thereafter to Jalore for executing Registry in favour of Bhanwar Singh by bus. In the meantime, the respondents lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and other persons stating that the petitioner and others started construction in the dipsuted land and upon protesting, the petitioner and other persons started beating them. A complaint in this regard was lodged by the respondents wherein, the police submitted a report ignoring the stand of the petitioner. The trial court called for witnesses and the matter was kept in abeyance for evidence. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitteda protest petition for taking cognianze against the respondents. The trial court after recording the statement of witnesses and considering the evidence dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner and refused to take cognizance against the private respondents vide order dated 07.07.2018. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur which too was dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2021.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the material aspect of the matter, the trial court mechanically refused to take cognizance against the respondents. It is argued that on the basis of statement of the complainant and other witnesses, a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused respondents. It is argued that from the statement of witnesses and material on record, there are sufficient material to take cognizance against the accused persons. Therefore, it is
[2023:RJ-JD:37616]
[CRLMP-2440/2023]
(3 of 3)
prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned orders and submitted that both the courts below have discussed each and every aspect of the matter and have rightly rejected the protest petition and revision petition respectively, which does not called for any interference.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned so also the record.
It is not disputed that the trial court refused to take cognizance against the private respondents on the ground that no case was made out against the respondents as the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case against the respondents by adducing cogent evidence. Learned Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement of witnesses, by way of detailed order, refused to take cognizance against the respondents. The revision petition filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur by way of a detailed order. In the opinion of this Court, no plausible ground exists for interfering with the finding given by the courts below. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders dated 07.07.2018 & 08.09.2021. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
339-BJSH/-
Banshilal S/o Adu Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Ramkishor S/o Bhagirath Ram
Bholuram S/o Bhagirath Ram
Tejaram S/o Bhagirath Ram
Radhakishan S/o Ramkishor
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
