Darshan Solanki @ Darshu vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9110 Raj

(1 of 2) [CRLR-351/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 351/2021

Darshan Solanki @ Darshu S/o Balu Ram, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Liyo Ka Guda, Ambamata Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Bahla Shah S/o Shabir Shah Bohra, Aged About 19 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o 11, Parshuram Colony, Nimachkhera, P.s. Ambamata, Dist. Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Kapil Purohit, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

08/04/2021

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against

the order dated 25.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, No.4, Udaipur by which the learned Judge framed the charges

against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324,

307/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial

court has framed the charges against the petitioner in a very

mechanical manner because while passing the order impugned the

learned trial court has not considered the statements, injury report, x-

ray report and other material documents available before it. Counsel

submits that as per injury report, the complainant have received two

injuries, which are neither grievous and dangerous to life nor on the

vital part of the body, which could cause death, therefore framing of

charge for offence under Section 307 IPC is illegal. The impugned order

is nothing but a non-speaking order as no reasons have been assigned

(2 of 2) [CRLR-351/2021]

in the impugned order by the learned trial court for framing charges for

the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. Thus it is prayed that the

order of framing charge may be set aside and the matter be remanded

to the trial court for passing a fresh order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the

impugned order is perfectly justified and requires no interference from

this Court and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

I have considered the submissions advanced before me and gone

through the impugned order of framing charge.

From the perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the

learned trial court while passing the order impugned has not considered

the material aspects of the matter as well as has not even looked into

the statements recorded before the Police, injury report and other

documents. The learned trial court has passed the order impugned in a

mechanical manner and without application of mind as no reasons or

findings have been given in the impugned order of framing charge. The

impugned order being mechanical in nature deserves to be set aside in

the interest of justice.

In view of above, the order impugned dated 25.01.2021 passed

by the trial court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial

court with the direction to pass a detailed reasoned/speaking order in

accordance with law, after considering all the material evidence

available before it and after hearing both the parties.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay petition

also decided.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 19-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)