Dismissed

Harishchand Son of Madanlal (Deceased) v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2025CRLMP/7438/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging orders by the SDO and Additional Sessions Judge that dropped proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and released attached property. The court held that the petitioners' long delay of over 16 years in recording evidence warranted no interference.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition rejected; stay application and pending applications dismissed.

Harishchand Son of Madanlal (Deceased) Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1913]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7438/2024

¶4

Harishchand Son of Madanlal (Deceased), through LRs

¶5

Kiran Gupta Wife of Harish, Aged About 52 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶6

Pramod Son of Harish, Aged About 30 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶7

Pinky Daughter of Harish, Aged About 28 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶8

Mamta Daughter of Harish, Aged About 26 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶9

Sapna Daughter of Harish, Aged About 24 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶10

Riddhima Daughter of Harish, Aged About 20 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶11

Rajendra Son of Madanlal, Aged About 55 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶12

Moolchand Son of Madanlal, Aged About 52 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶13

Gopal Son of Madanlal, Aged About 50 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶14

Babulal Son of Madanlal, Aged About 43 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶15

Subhash Son of Madanlal, Aged About 38 Years, Bhadwadi, Thana Thoi, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶19

Puranmal Son of Bhagwan Sahai, Resident of Ward No.

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:1913]

[CRLMP-7438/2024]

19, Chhawani, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶24

1. Ramjilal @ Ramlal Son of Bhagwan Sahai, Resident of Ward No. 19, Chhawani, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Omveer Singh Saini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Choudhary,PP

¶27

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶28

Order

¶29

15/01/2025

¶30

The instant misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Neem ka Thana, by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and upheld the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.

¶31

By passing the impugned order dated 19.06.2024, the SubDivisional Magistrate dropped the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and released the property in question from the attachment and receiver.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to avoid the disturbance of peace and tranquility between the parties with regard to the dispute over the possession of the land in question, the Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana filed a criminal complaint for the offence under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the property in question was attached and a receiver was appointed on 02.12.1998.

[2025:RJ-JP:1913]

[CRLMP-7438/2024]

(3 of 4)

Counsel submits that the matter was posted for recording the evidence of party No.1, i.e. the petitioner but during pendency of the aforesaid complaint, the Party No.1, i.e. Madanlal (grandfather of the petitioner) expired, hence, his legal representatives were substituted on the record. Counsel submits that one of the legal representative of the deceased Madanlal, appearing on behalf of all the legal representatives, was litigating the matter before the Court of SDO but subsequently he also expired. Counsel submits that the legal representatives of the said representative Harishchand were not aware about the aforesaid proceedings, hence, they could not appear in the witness box for recording their evidence and in absence of their evidence, the order impugned has been passed and the complaint filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the property in question has been released from attachment. Counsel submits that due to ignorance of the pendency of the aforesaid complaint before the Court of SDO, the evidence could not be produced, Hence, the last opportunity be granted to the petitioners for producing their evidence.

¶37

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the land in question was attached and was taken in possession by the receiver way-back in the year 1998, thereafter, ample opportunity was granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence. Counsel submits that instead of passing of more than 16 years, not a single witness was examined at the instance of the petitioners and even cross-examination was also not done with the witnesses of the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned passed by the learned SDO while recording

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:1913]

[CRLMP-7438/2024]

cogent reasons, requires no interference of this Court. Counsel submits that the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter was taken into count by the revisional court by passing a reasoned and speaking order dated 19.09.2024 by which the order passed by the SDO was upheld. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioners were not entitled to get any further opportunity and the instant misc. petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that the proceedings were pending before the court of Sub-Judicial Magistrate since 1998, but no steps were taken by the petitioners at any point of time for recording their evidence and even no cross-examination was conducted from the witnesses of the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, both the courts below have not committed any error in passing the order impugned which requires any interference of this Court.

¶42

Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands rejected.

¶43

Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶44

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶45

Garima/28

Harishchand Son of Madanlal (Deceased) v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchand Son of Madanlal (Deceased) 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

Nikhil Triphati S/O Shri R.K. Triphati, Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Chhipa S/O Parasmal Chhipa Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandmal Jangid S/O Bodulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chotu Ram Vs State

Kamal Rathore Son of Dhannalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkunwar @ Devkaran Son of Ramnarayan, Vs State of Rajasthan