Disposed

M/S Kalyan Motors v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2024CRLMP/2465/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking summoning of a witness. It directed the petitioner to furnish the correct address within ten days, after which the trial court must issue summons. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed to furnish witness address within ten days; trial court to issue summons and conclude trial within two months.

M/S Kalyan Motors Vs State of Rajasthan and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5434]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2465/2014

M/s Kalyan Motors

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Anr

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Kuldeep Bhatia for
	Mr.	K. N. Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	M. K. Sheoran, PP
	Mr.	O. P. Mishra

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

01/02/2024

¶13

The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to 'learned revisional court' for brevity) in Criminal Revision No.56/2014 whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 22.02.2014 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate, NI Act No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.53/2013 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the witness namely Hanish Nayar.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that examination of the aforesaid witness Harish Nayar is very essential for just decision of the case as the dealership agreement was executed at the instance of the said witness, who was Sales Executive of M/s Escorts Ltd. at the relevant point of time. He submits that aforesaid witness is not turning up before the trial court at his

[2024:RJ-JP:5434]

[CRLMP-2465/2014]

(2 of 3)

instance. Therefore, this witness is required to be summoned. He further submits that both the courts below have not considered the prayer of the petitioner in right perspective and dismissed the application. He submits that he is ready to furnish the correct address of the aforesaid witness.

¶19

Learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that both the courts below have properly considered the material available on record and passed a well reasoned order and as such, no interference is called for by this court. He also submits that in fact, this is second revision petition in the garb of misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC which is not maintainable.

¶20

I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties.

¶21

From bare perusal of the impugned order dated 22.02.2014, it appears that examination of aforesaid witnesses is essential for just decision of the case and if such witness is not appearing at the instance of the petitioner-accused, then he may be summoned by the Court. This petition is pending since 2014 and by effect of interim order dated 23.05.2014, there has been stay on trial which is still operating.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed with the following directions:-

¶23

The petitioner shall furnish correct and proper address of the aforesaid witness-Hanish Nayyar before the trial court within ten days from today.

¶24

Upon furnishing fresh address of the said witness, the trial court shall issue summons to ensure the presence of aforesaid

[2024:RJ-JP:5434]

[CRLMP-2465/2014]

(3 of 3)

witness at the earliest. The petitioner would also be at liberty to produce the aforesaid witness, if said witness is ready to appear before the trial court. It is made clear that if address furnished by the petitioner of the aforesaid witness is found to be incorrect or improper, the right of the petitioner to summon the aforesaid witness shall be ceased automatically.

¶29

Trial court is also directed to conclude the trial after examination or affecting service of summon of the aforesaid witness within the period of two months.

¶30

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶31

GAUTAM JAIN /312

M/S Kalyan Motors v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kalyan Motors v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilkush Gurjar D/O Shri Kishanlal Gurjar W/O Gorishankar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepa D/O Bishambar Dayal W/O Aasheesh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nitin Jain S/O Shri Kailash Chand Godha, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Sharma S/O Shri Prabhudayal Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jyoti Kumari Khatik D/O Sh. Nangiya Khatik, W/O Rajesh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Golu Alias Shyambabu S/O Shri Pannalal Vs State of Rajasthan