Partly allowed

Sultan and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CRLR/1321/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petition challenging framing of charges. Court held that framing of charge under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act was erroneous due to lack of prosecution sanction and separate charge-sheet. Impugned order was partly quashed to discharge petitioners from that specific charge.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order partly quashed to the extent of framing charge under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act; petitioners discharged from that charge.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50009]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1321/2006

¶4

1- lqyrku iq= Jh dkyw [kka

¶5

2- lkcqn~nhu [kka iq= Jh lqyrku

¶6

3- rS;c iq= Jh lqyrku [kka

¶7

rhuksa fuoklh;ku HkqYykdk ckl] iqfyl Fkkuk lnj] vyoj ftyk vyojA

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

JktLFkku jkT; tfj;s yksd vfHk;kstd

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaswant Singh for Mr. Biri Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP

¶13

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

04/12/2024

¶16

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 07.09.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar in Criminal Case No.28/2005, the instant revision petition has been preferred.

¶17

By passing of the impugned order, charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section(s) 323, 341, 336 & 452 of IPC & Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶18

Counsel submits that the FIR bearing No.106/2005, was registered against the petitioners and the co-accused, Haneef Khan for the offences punishable under Section(s) 143, 323, 379 & 452 of IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Counsel submits that after a thorough investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Section(s) 323, 341,

[2024:RJ-JP:50009]

[CRLR-1321/2006]

(2 of 3)

336 & 452 of IPC only and charge was not submitted against them under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶23

Counsel submits that the allegation of using the firearm was only against the co-accused Haneef Khan, against whom the prosecution sanction was granted by the District Magistrate, Alwar to prosecute him for the aforesaid offence. Counsel submits that no prosecution sanction was issued against the petitioners, for their prosecution under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, there was no reason and occasion available with the Trial Court to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the petitioners be discharged from the charge under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶24

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that after investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341, 336 & 452 of IPC and charge-sheet was not submitted against them under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act along with other offences against the co-accused Haneef Khan, against whom prosecution sanction was issued for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act by the District Magistrate, Alwar but no prosecution

[2024:RJ-JP:50009]

[CRLR-1321/2006]

(3 of 3)

sanction was issued against the petitioners for their prosecution under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶29

But overlooking this material aspect of the matter, the learned Trial Judge has erred in framing the charge against the petitioners under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶30

In view of above, the impugned order dated 07.09.2006 is partly quashed to the extent of framing of charge against the petitioners under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The rest of the order would remain intact and as it is. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Looking to the fact that the incident pertains to the year 2005 and the same took place more than 19 years back, it is expected from the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings of the Trial. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for necessary compliance.

¶32

Let original record of the case be sent back to the Trial Court.

¶33

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶34

GARIMA /19

Sultan and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan 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

Surendra Kumar S/O Jagdish Prasad Vs the Chairman

Income Tax Officer Vs Baldev Sharma S/O Shri Ravidutta

Sanjay Kumar S/O Ramniwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukul Aggarwal S/O Shri T.N. Aggarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Alias Lahari and Ors. Vs State

Prahalad Kumar Gupta Son of Shri Jagan Prasad , Vs State of Rajasthan