Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders directing return of Rs.90,000/- to the acquitted accused. Court found no illegality in the lower court and revisional court orders and dismissed the petition.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:18947]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1080/2018
Rajesh Kumar Son Of Madanlal, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Adv. |
|---|---|
| Mr. JaideepSingh | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP |
| Mr. Sardul Bishnoi for complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/05/2024
By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“Hence, it is prayed that in order to secure the ends of justice, the foregoing misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the both the impugned orders dated 16.02.2018 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge No.1, Hanumangarh and order dated 24.06.2013 passed by judicial magistrate, Hanumangarh may kindly be set aside.”
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute before this Court that the learned Lower Court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 411 of IPC vide order dated 20.06.2009.
(2 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:18947]
[CRLMP-1080/2018]
It is also not in dispute before this Court that while the trial was pending against the accused-respondent No.2, the learned Lower Court on an application filed on behalf of the petitioner, vide order dated 21.03.2002 directed the accused-respondent No.2 to hand over the amount of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner in cash, recovered during the investigation.
The accused-respondent No.2 after his acquittal for the offences under Section 411 IPC filed an application under Section 452 Cr.P.C. praying return of the amount of Rs.90,000/-, ordered to be given to the present petitioner. The learned Lower Court vide order dated 24.06.2012 allowed the application moved by the respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner to handover the amount of Rs.90,000/- back to respondent No.2.
Having gone through the order dated 24.06.2012 and the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by Revisional Court, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. In the opinion of this Court no illegality has been committed by the learned Lower Court and Revisional Court in directing the petitioner to handover/surrender the amount of Rs.90,000/- back to the respondent No.2 when he has been acquitted for the offences under Section 411 IPC. The criminal trial against accusedrespondent No.2 has already attained the finality and presently, no proceedings against him are pending before any court of law in connection with the FIR No.07/2001, registered at P.S. Pilibanga.
Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit whatsoever.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1080/2018]
[2024:RJ-JD:18947]
All pending applications are also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
265-himanshu/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the courts below erred in directing the petitioner to return Rs.90,000/- to the accused-respondent after his acquittal under Section 411 IPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh Kumar
The State Of Rajasthan
Mahendra Singh
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
