Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shiv Baser vs State on 1 March, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2477/2020
Shiv Baser S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Baser, Aged About 36
Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o Kachhola, Police Station Kachhola,
District Bhilwara. At Present Flat No. B 801, Rock Castle,
Godbandar Road, Thane Best, District Thane, Maharashtra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through PP
2. Avinash S/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar, R/o Bigod, P.s. Bigod,
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2472/2020
Shiv Baser S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Baser, Aged About 36
Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o Kachhola, Police Station Kachhola,
District Bhilwara. At Present Flat No. B 801, Rock Castle,
Godbandar Road, Thane Best, District Thane, Maharashtra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through PP
2. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Durga Lal Dakheda, R/o Kachhola,
Mandalgarh, Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2474/2020
Shiv Baser S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Baser, Aged About 36
Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o Kachhola, Police Station Kachhola,
District Bhilwara. At Present Flat No. B 801, Rock Castle,
Godbandar Road, Thane Best, District Thane, Maharashtra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through PP
2. Jitendra Kumar Mundra S/o Sh. Om Prakash Mundra, R/o
Village Dhamniya, P.s. Kachhola, Mandalgarh, Bhilwara
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
01/03/2021
These three misc. petitions have been filed seeking quashing
of the orders dated 19.02.2020, 28.02.2020 & 28.02.2020 taking
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2477/2020]
cognizance against the petitioner in three different cases involving
similar facts for the offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B
IPC.
Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate representing the petitioner
submits that as the orders taking cognizance are ex-parte orders
formally passed on the basis of the charge-sheets submitted after
investigation, the petitioner would be better advised to raise all his
objections before the trial court at the stage of framing of charges.
His prayer is that the trial court may be directed to objectively
consider and deal with the petitioner's arguments in the order
framing charges by assigning reasons.
Learned Public Prosecutor does not object to the said
submission. Thus, the petitioner is given liberty to advance
arguments before the trial court at the stage of framing of
charges. Such arguments shall be considered in detail and dealt
with by assigning reasons. Needless to say that in case any
adverse order is passed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
challenge the same as per law.
With the above observations, the misc. petitions as well as
the stay applications are disposed of as withdrawn.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
28-Sudhir Asopa, Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
