Dismissed

Haji Younis Khan Son of Chand Muhammad, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLMP/698/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of cognizance under IPC Sections 379, 447, and 354, claiming the trial and revisional courts ignored witness statements and a negative final report. The High Court found no perversity in the lower courts' findings and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed as there was no infirmity in the lower courts' orders.

Haji Younis Khan Son of Chand Muhammad, Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22246]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 698/2023

¶4

Haji Younis Khan Son Of Chand Muhammad, Resident Of Near Sampala Gate, Sarwad Police Station Sarwad,

¶5

Arif Son Of Younis Mansoori, Resident Of Near Sampala Gate, Sarwad

¶6

Abdul Majeed Son Of Badruddin, Resident Of Sarwad

¶7

Alladdin Son Of Abdul Rahman, Resident Of Sarwad

¶8

Harun Son Of Chand Mohammad (wrongly written, he is son of Haji Younis Khan) Resident Of Sarwad

¶9

Anis Son Of Haji Younis Mansoori, Resident Of Sarwad All Residents Of Sarwad Police Station Sarwad District Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur.

¶13

Mehfooz Khan son of Babu Khan resident of Sarwad Kotha Ki Talai, Sarwad Police Station Sarwad District Ajmer.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP Mr. Jitendra Singh, Adv.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶17

Order

¶18

10/05/2024

¶19

No one appears on behalf of the petitioners.

¶20

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance under Sections 379, 447 and 354 of IPC. It is averred in the petition that the learned trial Court did not consider the statement of neighbours. Initially negative final report was submitted by the

[2024:RJ-JP:22246]

[CRLMP-698/2023]

(2 of 3)

Investigating Officer. The learned Court below took the cognizance without directing for any further investigation.

¶25

In the impugned order dated 22.11.2016, the Court below did not discuss the statement of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Similarly the Revisional Court also illegally exercised the jurisdiction and did not consider the facts mentioned in the negative final report, therefore, cognizance order was passed by the Magistrate Court and affirmed by the Revisional Court may be quashed and set aside.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents support the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate Court and affirmed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1 Kekri.

¶27

Heard and perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶28

Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 22.11.2016 took the cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 379, 447 and 354 of IPC.

¶29

While passing the impugned order, learned trial Court has taken into consideration the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 17.01.2023 dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioners. The Revisional Court has taken into consideration the entire material placed on record and concurred with the findings arrived at by the Court below. Both the courts below have assigned cogent reasons for disbelieving the negative final report.

[2024:RJ-JP:22246]

[CRLMP-698/2023]

(3 of 3)

The Revisional Court, in the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 categorically opined that despite the statement of the complainant and other witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. regarding commission of crime by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer did not give any strong reasons to disbelieve their reasons.

¶35

I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶36

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶37

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-679

Haji Younis Khan Son of Chand Muhammad, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Younis Khan Son of Chand Muhammad, 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

Ramjilal Verma S/O Late Ramsukhlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramniwas S/O Gheesaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram S/O Shri Ummed Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Aniket Shah Son of Shri Rajesh Kumar Shah, Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Gupta Vs State

Rashid Vs State