Smt. Anju Meena Wife Of Shri Rahul ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7596 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7596 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Smt. Anju Meena Wife Of Shri Rahul ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 December, 2022

Bench: Uma Shanker Vyas

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
             BENCH AT JAIPUR

 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9528/2022

1.     Smt. Anju Meena Wife Of Shri Rahul Meena,
       Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Plot No. C-64,
       Tirupati Nagar, Near C.b.i. Phatak, Police Station
       Ramnagariya, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.     Arvind Meena Son Of Shri Madan Lal Meena,
       Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Plot No. C-64,
       Tirupati Nagar, Near C.b.i. Phatak, Police Station
       Ramnagariya, Jaipur (Raj.)
3.     Smt. Batto Wife Of Shri Madan Lal Meena, Aged
       About 52 Years, Resident Of Plot No. C-64,
       Tirupati Nagar, Near C.b.i. Phatak, Police Station
       Ramnagariya, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                        ----Petitioners
                               Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2.     Sunil Sharma Son Of Shri R.b. Sharma, Aged
       About 38 Years, Resident Of Plot No. C-54,
       Tirupati Nagar, Near C.b.i. Phatak, Police Station
       Ramnagariya, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)      :    Mr. K.L. Meena
For                    :    Mr. Imran Khan, PP
Respondent(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Order

02/12/2022

;[email protected];qDrx.k dh vksj ls /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ;g ;kfpdk ifjoknh dh vksj ls iqfyl

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-9528/2022]

Fkkuk&jkeuxfj;k] ftyk&t;iqj 'kgj ¼iwoZ½ esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k [email protected] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 323] 341] 354] 506 Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk is'k dh gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k dk fuosnu gS fd ;kph i{k dh vksj ls orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls iwoZ ifjoknh i{k ds fo:) ,d izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k [email protected] fnukad 11-02-2022 dks ntZ djk;h Fkh ftlesa iqfyl us ekeyk izekf.kr ekurs gq, vkjksi i= is'k fd;k x;k gS] mlls cpus ds fy, feF;k vk/kkj ij orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd ;kph dze&2 vjfoUn ?kVuk ds le; ?kVukLFky ls djhc ,d&Ms< fdeh nwj fte esa ekStwn Fkk] var esa ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk rdZ gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vk{ksiksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo Li"V :i ls izdV gks jgs gSa rFkk lkjoku vuqla/kku gksuk 'ks"k gSA ;g vkjksi feF;k gksa] ,slk bl izdze ij fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrkA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd vfHk;qDr i{k dh vksj ls tks cpko fy;s x;s gSa] og vuqla/kku vFkok fopkj.k dk fo"k; gks ldrk gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA of.kZr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ifjoknh }kjk ;g vkjksi yxk;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ifjoknh] mldh iRuh rFkk

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-9528/2022]

yMdh dks jksddj ekjihV dh rFkk iRuh ds lkFk NsMNkM dj yTtk Hkax dkfjr dh] tks laKs; vijk/k ls lacaf/kr gSA ;fn izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vk{ksiksa ls dksbZ laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV ugha gks jgs gksa vFkok mu vkjksiksa dks lgh eku fy;s tkus ds ckotwn U;kf;d izfdz;k ds nq:i;ksx dk ekeyk izdV gksrk gS rks ,slh vFkok vU; leku vkSj viokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr iznRr vUrfufgZr 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, fujLr fd;k tk ldrk gS] fdUrq ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ka orZeku ekeys esa ekStnw ugha gSaA vfHk;qDr i{k dh vksj ls bl izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksiksa dks ftu vk/kkjksa ij feF;k crkus dk iz;kl fd;k gS] os vuqla/kku vFkok vfHk;kstu lafLFkr gksus ij cpko dk fo"k; gks ldrs gSaA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and

Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

ds iSjk la[;k*07 esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%&

"7.Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-9528/2022]

of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."

mijksDrkuqlkj Li"V gS fd /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, bl LVst ij miyC/k lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vFkok Lohdk;Zrk ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA tc rd lqn`< vk/kkj ugha gksa] rc rd vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA bl izdkj /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gS vkSj izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

Mittal /41