Dismissed

Mukutbihari Sharma S/O Shri Kanhaya Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2024CRLMP/4023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Petition challenging a revisional court order remanding a matter for fresh consideration including prosecution sanction issues. High Court found no illegality and dismissed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Misc. petition dismissed holding no illegality in revisional court’s remand order and no interference warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Mukutbihari Sharma S/O Shri Kanhaya Lal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:653]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4023/2019

¶4

Mukutbihari Sharma S/o Shri Kanhaya Lal Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, Retired Vyavasthapak Harnawada Shahji Gram Sewas Sahakari Samiti, At Present R/o Village Harnawada Shahji, Police Station Harnawada Shahji, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran, Raj.

¶5

Pawan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mukut Bihari Sharma B/c Brahmin, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Harnawada Shahji, Police Station Harnawada Shahji, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran, Raj.

¶6

Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mukutbihari Sharma Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Harnawada Shahji, Police Station Harnawada Shahji, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran, Raj.

¶7

----Accused-Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Kailash Chand Vaishnav, Vyavasthapak Gram Sewas Sahakari Samiti, Harnawada Shahji, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran, Raj.

¶12

----Complainant-Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. J K Singhi, Sr. Adv assisted by Mr. O P Pareek
		Mr. Roshan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶15

04/01/2024

¶16

By way of instant misc. petition, challenge has been made to the order dated 27.04.2019 in revision petition No.11/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, District Baran, whereunder while setting aside the order of cognizance dated

[2024:RJ-JP:653]

[CRLMP-4023/2019]

(2 of 3)

29.11.2017, matter has been remanded to the trial Court to reconsider the case afresh.

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has pointed out that in the instant case prosecution sanction in compliance of Section 110 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) has not been obtained and charge-sheet has been wrongly filed. He submits that this issue was raised by petitioners by filing misc. petition No.4585/2014 which was decided by this Court on 12.12.2014 with the observation that sanction of prosecution in compliance of Section 110 of the Act of 2001, is required at the time of filing of charge-sheet and not during investigation and the misc. petition was disposed of with observation that prosecution will see the compliance of Section 110 of the Act of 2001. However, without obtaining the prosecution sanction charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance was taken.

¶22

Learned Senior counsel urged that though the order of cognizance has been set aside but the revisional court ought to have considered the non-compliance of Section 110 of the Act of 2001, instead of remanding the matter and proceedings must have been quashed.

¶23

Per contra, counsel for complainant pointed out that while remanding the issue of taking cognizance or not by the trial Court the revisional court has clearly observed that the point in respect of grant of prosecution sanction in compliance of Section 110 of the Act of 2001 is to be considered by the trial Court, which is still open for the trial court to be considered. In such view of the

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:653]

[CRLMP-4023/2019]

matter the impugned order does not require any interference under inherent powers of this Court.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant have opposed the submission.

¶29

Having heard counsel for parties and perusing the material available on record, it is clear from the record that the order of cognizance has been set aside by the Revisional Court and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court vide impugned order. So far the issue of prosecution sanction in compliance of Section 110 of the Act of 2001 is concerned, as observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 12.12.2014, is to be considered by the trial Court itself while considering the issue in respect of cognizance is to be taken or not.

¶30

In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court whereby while setting aside the order of cognizance, matter has been remanded to the trial Court for considering afresh on the issue of taking cognizance or not. It is needless to observe that the trial Court while considering the matter shall ponder over the issue of prosecution sanction in the light of Section 110 of the Act of 2001.

¶31

In such circumstances, at this stage, this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Revisional Court. There is no force in the misc. petition and same is hereby dismissed.

¶32

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶33

arn/1161

Mukutbihari Sharma S/O Shri Kanhaya Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukutbihari Sharma S/O Shri Kanhaya Lal Sharma 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

Harisingh Lambora S/O Sh. Laxmi Narain, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra @ Raju Vs State

Banna and Ors. Vs State and Anor

Dilkhush Gurjar Son of Hansraj Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjundas Rathi S/O Keshavlal Rathi Vs Vinit Shrimal S/O Ramesh Chand Shrimal

Manisha W/O Shri Narendra Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan