Partly allowed

Parvej @ Moti v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLR/501/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed Revision No.501/2024, quashing the order taking cognizance against two petitioners due to over-implication and lack of specific role assignment. The court dismissed Revision No.550/2024 filed by the injured, upholding the trial court's decision not to take cognizance against other respondents as no specific averment existed against them.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance against Petitioners No.1 and No.3 under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is quashed; Revision No.550/2024 is dismissed.

Parvej @ Moti Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:21075]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 501/2024

¶4

Parvej @ Moti S/o Mohammed Husain, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶5

Salim S/o Deen Mohammed, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶6

Hasan S/o Suleman Khan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

Yakub S/o Jalal Khan, R/o Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶11

Imran Khan S/o Jalal Khan, R/o Sherani Abad, Tehsil Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 550/2024

¶15

Imran Khan S/o Jalal Khan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gosiya Mohalla, Sherani Aabad, Tehsil Chhoti Khatu District DidwanaKuchaman.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

Abdul Hakim S/o Abdulla, R/o Gosiya Mohalla, Sherani Aabad, Tehsil Chhoti Khatu District Didwana-Kuchaman.

¶20

Ahmed Raza S/o Suleman @ Babu Khan, R/o Abdul Hakim S/o Abdulla, R/o Gosiya Mohalla, Sherani Aabad, Tehsil Chhoti Khatu District Didwana-Kuchaman.

¶21

Bilal Bangali, Father's Name Not Known, At Present Working As Cook At Hotel Sherani King Restaurant, Sherani Aabadi, Tehsil Chhoti Khatu District DidwanaKuchaman.

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan (Revision No.501/24) Mr. RS Choudhary (Revi. No.550/24) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, PP with Mr. CP Marwan

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

[2024:RJ-JD:21075]

[CRLR-501/2024]

(2 of 5)

10/05/2024

Both the revision petitions are being decided together as they have arisen out of the same order.

¶31

Both the revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 11.03.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana-Merta in Sessions Case No.23/2023 whereby learned trial court allowed the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the accused-petitioners and summoned them through bailable warrant.

¶32

Revision petition No.501/2024 has been filed by the accusedpetitioners, against whom the trial court took cognizance by the impugned order.

¶33

Revision petition No.550/2024 has been filed by the injured being aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial court for refusing to take cognizance against the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶34

Mr. Firoz Khan, appearing for the accused-petitioners in revision No.501/2024, has submitted that the FIR in this case has been lodged by Yakub Khan on 01.02.2023 with the specific averments that accused Gani Mohammed and Mohammed Sharif inflicted injuries to his brother Imran Khan on the head using lathi and other accused persons gave fist blows to his brother. Counsel submits that injured Imran Khan has specifically deposed in his statement that accused Mohammed Sharif and Mohammad Saleem had caused injuries on his head by lathies and other accused persons namely Jaleem and Gani Mohammad came on motorcycle and they gave fist blows to him. The injured further deposed that thereafter, the accused persons forcibly took him at the house of accused Jameel Khan in a pick-up jeep, where some

[2024:RJ-JD:21075]

[CRLR-501/2024]

(3 of 5)

other accused persons also gave beatings to him. Counsel submits that the injured Imran Khan received six injuries by blunt weapon and all these injuries are found to be simple in nature. Further, the accused party also lodged an FIR against the complainant party for offence under Sections 454, 354, 376/511 IPC. It is further submitted that initially the injured filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, which was dismissed and thereafter, the complainant filed the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused persons. The Police after thorough investigation, filed FR in respect to the present petitioners and filed charge-sheet only against accused Gani Mohammad, Mohammad Jamil, Mohammad Sharif and Mohammad Hussain. But the trial court without appreciating the facts mentioned in the final report, took cognizance against the petitioners. Counsel submits that the impugned order being per se illegal and bad in the eye of law, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶39

Mr. RS Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner-injured in Revision No.550/2024, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the accused-petitioners in Revision No.501/24 and submitted that names of the accused-petitioners (Revision No.501/24) and accused-respondents (Revision No.550/24) were very much present in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses. Even, the photographs also reveal that the accusedrespondents along with other accused persons gave fist blows to the petitioner-injured. Thus, it is prayed that the revision No.550/2024 may be allowed and the impugned order to the extent of refusing to take cognizance against the accused-

[2024:RJ-JD:21075]

[CRLR-501/2024]

(4 of 5)

respondents may be set aside and revision No.501/2024 filed by the accused petitioners may be dismissed.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the trial court as well as gone through the statement of the witnesses and other material available on record.

¶45

From the perusal of the statement of the injured Imran recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that accused Mohammed Sharif and Mohammad Saleem inflicted lathi blow on his head and thereafter other accused persons namely Jaleem and Gani Mohammad came on motorcycle and gave beating to him. According to the injury report, the injured received six injuries by blunt weapon and all are found to be simple in nature.

¶46

Initially, the injured filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the trial court. Thereafter, the complainant, who is brother of the injured, filed the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the trial court cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioners (revision NO.501/2024). The injured made specific averment against accused-petitioner No.2 Mohammad Salim for causing lathi injury on his head and other 9-10 accused persons giving beatings to him. Only six injuries, that too simple in nature, are found on the body of the injured. There are cross cases between the parties. This is a case of over implication. From the perusal of the material available on record, it appears that no specific role has been assigned to accused petitioner No.1 Parvej @ Moti and accusedpetitioner No.3 Hasan. The learned trial court has committed grave error in taking cognizance against petitioners No.1 & 3.

[2024:RJ-JD:21075]

[CRLR-501/2024]

(5 of 5)

Hence, the revision No.501/2024 is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.03.2024 is quashed and set aside to the extent of taking cognizance against petitioner No.1 Parvej @ Moti and petitioner No.3 Hasan.

¶51

Stay application is also decided.

¶52

So far as revision No.550/2024 filed by the injured is concerned, from the material available on record, it appears that no specific averment has been made against the respondents No.2 to 4 in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses. The accused party also filed a complaint against the complainant party for offence under Sections 454, 354, 376/511 IPC. The injuries are found to be simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon. Thus, the learned trial court has not committed any error in not taking cognizance against the respondents No.2 to 4.

¶53

Hence, the revision No.550/2024 filed by the injured, being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶54

Stay application is also dismissed.

¶55

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶56

12 & 13-MS/-

Parvej @ Moti v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvej @ Moti 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

Naveen Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Brij Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Sattar Ali Vs State and Ors.

Suraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan