Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deo Krishan Daga vs State on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1775/2016
Yogendra Daga
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Anr.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1431/2016
Deo Krishan Daga
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Gehlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 23/08/2022
Pronounced on 25/08/2022
1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C have
been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following
reliefs:-
"(i) The Order dated 14/03/2016 and 28/10/2015 be set aside.
(ii) Petitioner be discharge from the offence under Section 420,
467, 468, 471 & 120 B IPC.
(iii) Any other relief for which the petitioner is entitle be given.
It, is therefore, prayed that the Petition is allowed with cost."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioners are that the complainant
lodged a complaint against the accused-petitioners with the C.B.I.
at Jodhpur; upon which investigation was conducted and the
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:56:41 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1775/2016]
concerned investigating officer filed a charge-sheet for the
offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B
I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
impugned orders dated 28.10.2015 and 14.03.2016 are not
sustainable in the eye of law, and that the learned Courts below
have not appreciated the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, and the petitioners are in fact in no way connected with the
alleged crime and the charges levelled against them, and thus,
they have wrongly been arrayed as the accused in the present
case.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while
opposing the petition, submitted that the learned Courts below
have rightly passed the impugned orders, and that at the stage of
of charge, neither a meticulous appreciation of evidence nor a
roving enquiry is to be made.
5. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for both parties and
perusing the record of the case, finds that the learned Courts
below have rightly proceeded in passing the impugned orders, as
looking into the facts and circumstances of the present case, a
presumption of guilt against the petitioners has rightly been
made.
6. This Court further observes that the impugned order dated
28.10.2015, passed by the learned Trial Court is a well reasoned
and speaking order, whereby the learned Court has observed that
the accused-petitioners herein seemed to have misused the letter
pad of the M/s. Motital Sharma and used the same for forging
(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 08:56:41 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1775/2016]
some documents pertaining to certain quotations, and in the
opinion of this Court, the said order has rightly been affirmed by
the learned revisionary court vide impugned order dated
14.03.2016.
7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts
below so as to warrant any interference at this stage.
8. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All
pending applications are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
35-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
