Hetram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6291 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6452/2021

Hetram S/o Sh. Ridmal Ram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Kotra, P.s. Karda, Teh. Raniwara, Dist. Jalore (Raj.). (Presently Practicing Advocate At Bhinmal, Dist. Jalore).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Laduram S/o Sh. Sanwata Ram, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Kotra, P.s. Karda, Teh. Raniwara, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P. P.


                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                                     Order
28/04/2022

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged

the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisional

Court') vide which the Revisional Court dismissed the revision

petition and affirmed the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by

Judicial Magistrate, Raniwara, District Jalore (hereinafter referred

to as the 'trial Court') vide which cognizance has been taken

against the petitioner under Section 341, 323 and 326/34 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

trial Court has committed an error of law in taking cognizance

under the above referred provisions and submitted that no offence

worth the name can be said to have been made out against the

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6452/2021]

petitioner, yet the trial Court has taken cognizance against him

and the Revisional Court has rejected revision petition cursorily

without appreciating factual matrix of the case and the judgments

cited by the petitioner.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon

perusal of the material made available on record, this Court is of

the view that there was sufficient material available to take

cognizance against the petitioner.

4. It is settled proposition that at the time of taking

cognizance, the Court is required to see possibility of commission

of offence and not required to undertake the expedition to go

through the entire evidence and deal with it.

5. The instant petition is nothing but a second revision in the

garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. A second revision by the same party is barred by the

provisions of Section 397 (3) of the Code. Hence, this Court is not

inclined to entertain the present petition.

6. Considering that initially a negative final report against the

petitioner had been submitted by the Investigating Officer, this

Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear

before the trial Court on or before 13.05.2022 and move an

application for bail.

7. In case the petitioner appears before the trial Court and

moves bail application, the trial Court shall accept the bail

application of the petitioner and release him on furnishing

personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/-

each.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6452/2021]

8. With the above observations, the misc. petition stands

disposed of.

9. Stay application too stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 195-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)