Dismissed

Ram Singh and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2024CRLMP/280/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the framing of charges for forgery and cheating, holding it to be a barred second revision. The Court directed the trial court to complete proceedings expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction issued to trial Court to complete trial preferably within one year.

What the court decided

Ram Singh and Ors. Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:12026]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 280/2012

¶4

Jaspal Singh

¶5

2. Sadhu Singh

¶6

(All sons of Shri Gurbachan Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o chak 3 STR at present Chak 15 GDTehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus 1.State Of Rajasthan 2. Onkar Singh S/o Kikar Singh B/c Rajput R/o Jach Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra H.P.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S.L. Jain
	Mr. Abhinav Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Kumar,PP Mr. R. Bhatnagar

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 20/02/2024 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 13/ 03 /2024 BY THE COURT:-

¶14

By way of filing the instant Misc. Petition, challenge is made to the order dated 12.07.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana in Criminal Misc. Case No.46/1999, whereby the learned trial Court directed to frame charges against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120-B of the IPC as well as against the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgrah, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No.72/2006 whereby the learned

[2024:RJ-JD:12026]

[CRLMP-280/2012]

(2 of 3)

Judge dismissed the revision filed against the order framing charge.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material made available to the Court.

¶20

The petitioner No.1 Ram Singh has passed away thus, the petition to his extent has been abated.

¶21

It is reflecting from the bare perusal of the order dated 12.07.2006 that there are allegations of fabrication of forged documents dated 01.12.1989 as well as misuse of a power of attorney which had been cancelled on 13.08.1991. Prima facie, circumstances are indicating that the accused Sukhdev Singh had hatched a conspiracy for commission of crime by making a forged documents. The FSL report suggesting dissimilarities in the signatures. At the time of considering the material on the question of framing of charge, a meticulous examination of evidence is not required to be done. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that there are allegations of cheating, fabrication of forged documents and using of the same by showing it to be genuine as well as regarding criminal conspiracy. The learned Magistrate has wisely observed the facts and circumstances of the case and then passed the order dated 12.07.2006. The legality, correctness and propriety of the same has been examined by the learned Sessions Judge now the same order has been challenged for making further examination.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:12026]

[CRLMP-280/2012]

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made at the Bar, this Court is of the view that the instant Misc. Petition is nothing but a second revision in disguise of a Misc. Petition. A second revision petition is barred under subClause (3) of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.

¶26

Accordingly, there is no force in the instant Misc. Petition, the same deserved to be and is hereby dismissed. Looking to the fact that the original complaint came to be filed on 30.04.1998 and the order framing charge were passed on 12.07.2006 it is deemed appropriate to direct the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within one year from the date of receipt of this order.

¶27

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for its compliance.

¶28

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶29

351-Mamta/-

Ram Singh and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ram Singh and Ors. v. State

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

Shanti Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Biram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajab Kumar Vs State

Aneesh Khan Vs State of Rajasthan