Afjal Son Of Hameed vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 223 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 10/2021

Afjal Son Of Hameed, Resident Of House No. 1044, Jeeva
Choudhary Ki Gali, M.D. Road, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.
2.        Akib Son Of Raiees Ahmed, Resident Of House No. 1090,
          Hakeemji- Ki-Gali, M.D. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg (through video conference) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP., Mr. Shovit Jhajharia (through video conference)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

12/01/2021

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by

order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-1, whereby he has taken

cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 302/34

of IPC.

Factual matrix of the case is that after investigation in the

FIR, police submitted a negative final report against the petitioner.

The complainant moved an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C.

and Sessions Judge has taken cognizance above mentioned

Sections against the petitioner and summoned the petitioner by

arrest warrants.

(2 of 2) [CRLR-10/2021]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he did not

want to challenge the cognizance order but he submitted that trial

court had summoned the petitioner by way of arrest warrants. So,

arrest warrants be converted into bailable warrants.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the judgment of Sarita Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr., S.B. Criminal Revision No.309/2016.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner.

In view of above, the Court below has not committed any

illegality in taking of the cognizance. However, summoning of the

petitioner by way of arrest warrants was not proper.

Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed.

The order pertaining to the taking of cognizance is upheld

but the order directing summoning by the arrest warrants is

quashed. Learned Court below is directed to summon the

petitioner by way of bailable warrants instead of arrest warrants.

The revision petition as well as stay application stands

disposed of accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/98

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)