Dismissed

Amit Kumar Dixit S/O Ankurnath Dixit B/C Dixit v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2023CRLR/570/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by agitators accused of climbing a Secretariat water tank. The High Court held the Trial Court did not fail to consider material and upheld the framing of charges under Section 387 IPC, noting the prosecution could have filed missing evidence under Section 91 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; Misc. application disposed of. No acquittal.

Amit Kumar Dixit S/O Ankurnath Dixit B/C… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:28079]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 570/2019

¶4

Amit Kumar Dixit S/o Ankurnath Dixit, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Flat No 203 Tirupati Nagar Kotwali Banswara

¶5

Deepak Kumar Jain S/o Madanlal Jain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Baroda Ps Jhalara Salumber Udaipur

¶6

Satya Prakash S/o Bajrang Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gangiyasar Ps Fatehpur Sadar Sikar

¶7

Rakesh Kumar Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Patan Ka Baas Ps Rajgarh Alwar

¶8

Tej Karan S/o Badri Lal Dhakad, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chitawa Post Sarola Jhalawar

¶9

Milind Mehta S/o Rajendra, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Seriya Salomber Udaipur

¶10

Laxmanlal S/o Shyamlal Meghwal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Neghariya Ps Delwara Rajsamand

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shikha Parnami. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahala, P.P.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶17

Order

¶18

03/10/2023

¶19

Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from orders dated 07.09.2018 and 22.10.2018 in Criminal Case No.22/2018, whereby learned Trial Court has proceeded to frame charges under Section 387 IPC.

¶20

Learned counsel while referring the grounds and material available on record submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were not named in FIR. She further submitted that the petitioners went to Secretariat for their grievance redressal, but instead of grievance redressal, they were falsely

[2023:RJ-JP:28079]

[CRLR-570/2019]

(2 of 3)

implicated in the case. She further referred the statement of witnesses and further submitted that the petitioners were neither identified nor named by anyone. She further submitted that the essential ingredients as required under Section 383 IPC were not established and the Trial Court has failed to consider aforesaid. She further submitted that even CD recording was not produced with the charge-sheet by the Police and the material on record is not sufficient to charge petitioners for the offence of extortion.

¶25

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that sufficient documents were not filed including CD recording of the alleged incident. We are of the opinion that if anything not relied by the prosecution, if not filed, then petitioners can resort to provision under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., but same would be decided only on the basis of settled proposition of law and not otherwise. Therefore, it is prerogative of the prosecution to place on record the material, on which, they are placing reliance for prosecution. If the material is not sufficient, they it may help in securing acquittal of petitioners, therefore, we cannot opine on sufficiency of material on record.

¶28

As regard to present case is concerned, the fact on record clearly indicates that petitioners in order to secure appointment order in pursuant to recruitment of LDCs in 2013 by Panchayati Raj Department entered in the Secretariat Complex and further climbed on water tank. The evidence on record further suggests

[2023:RJ-JP:28079]

[CRLR-570/2019]

(3 of 3)

that the petitioners were also indulged in sloganeering and demanded appointment letter to climbed down from the water tank. The Secretariat building, a State Government Headquarter is a highly sensitive place and resorting to agitation in form of sloganeering and also climbing on water tank situated in Secretariat Complex is really something which is a serious attempt to challenge the system.

¶33

Having considered the material on record and also the statement of witnesses and also the fact that even named FIR was lodged with documents of entry against the petitioners. Section 387 of IPC prescribed that if someone attempts to extort from another person by putting them in fear of death or grievous hurt, they can be punished with imprisonment upto 07 years and may also be punished with fine. The simple language of Section 387 of IPC clearly indicates that herein this case petitioners were found guilty by Police and enough material is available to name them in the incident, therefore, at this stage, it is not possible for us to consider the justification of agitation.

¶34

Having considered aforesaid material on record, I do not find any reason, wherein the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the material on record, therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶36

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶37

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶38

PKS/269

Amit Kumar Dixit S/O Ankurnath Dixit B/C Dixit v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Dixit S/O Ankurnath Dixit B/C Dixit 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

Dr Mahendra Mahla and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Nishant Heda S/O Rameshwar Lal Heda Vs Alok Kumar Mathur

Ganesh Yadav Son of Shri Ramkaran Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevan Ram Meena S/O Late Shri Kanhiya Lal Vs Munni Meena W/O Shri Jeevan Ram Meena

Satish Kumar S/O Jorawar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Leeladhar Son of Shri Badri Lal Vs State of Rajasthan