Petitioner challenged the revisional court's order quashing cognizance taken against accused respondents under Sections 420 and 379 IPC. The High Court found no error in the revisional court's findings and dismissed the Section 482 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-JP:36933]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2467/2015
Anand Singh Son of Uttam Singh, Resident of 342, Scheme No.8, Gandhi Nagar Police Station Arawali Vihar, Alwar
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Rinesh Gupta, Adv. |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. | Saurabh Pratap Singh, Adv. | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
03/09/2024
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Alwar in Revision No.129/2014, by which revisional court set aside the order dated 09.03.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, by which the said court took cognizance against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 420 and 379 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner lodged an FIR against the accused respondents. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer filed a negative final report. After that, petitioner filed a protest petition. Trial court vide order dated 09.03.2013 had taken cognizance against the accused
[2024:RJ-JP:36933]
[CRLMP-2467/2015]
(2 of 2)
respondents for the offence under Sections 420 and 379 IPC. Accused respondents challenged the said order by way of revision and revisional court vide order dated 27.01.2015 allowed the revision petition filed by the accused respondents and set aside the cognizance order passed by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that revisional court touched the merits of the case whereas at the stage of cognizance only prima facie case has to be examined. So, order of the revisional court be set aside and order of the trial court be restored.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Dy. GA for the State and perused the impugned orders.
Revisional court while allowing the revision petition filed by the accused respondents clearly mentioned that complainant had not examined any eye witnesses for proving the offence of theft and petitioner had lodged the present FIR after lodging report against him by Prakash Kaur under Section 354 IPC. Nothing was recovered from the accused respondents. So, in my considered opinion, revisional court had not committed any error in allowing the revision petition filed by the accused respondents. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /243
1 issue framed by the court
Did the revisional court err in setting aside the trial court's cognizance order against the accused respondents?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Anand Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Gurmit Singh @ Jaswant Singh
Prakash Kaur
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
