Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chetan Menaria vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 805/2022
Chetan Menaria S/o Late Shri Ganpat Lal Menaria, Aged About
45 Years, R/o 27 Ganga Gali Ghanta Ghar Udaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dilip Sharma S/o Shri Kahiya Lal Sharma, R/o Panchwati
Ps Hatipol Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Paliwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh PP
Mr. M.S. Soni
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
25/07/2022
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated
12.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No.80/2018
(CIS No.82/2018), whereby the learned court below has framed
the charge under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of this case, as placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court, are that respondent No.2/complainant
filed a written report before the SHO, Police Station Ambamata,
alleging therein that his daughter, namely, Neeta Sharma died in
suspicious circumstances on 12.06.2017. The deceased girl was
alleged to have been instigated to commit suicide by the present
petitioner. As per the report, the deceased girl and the present
(Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:35:45 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-805/2022]
petitioner were working together for about 11 years, prior to her
death. The allegation levelled against the present petitioner, also
included mental and financial exploitation of the deceased girl by
the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge
levelled does not constitute the offence, as per the definition
contained in Section 107 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following
judgments:
(a) Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No.93/2019,
decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.01.2019;
(b) S.S. Chhena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC
190;
(c) Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433;
(d) M. Mohan Vs. The State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and;
(e) Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2010) 8 SCC
628.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 oppose the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
7. Ordinarily, this Court would have entered the merits of the
case, but for the statements of Ms. Ritu Mehta, Ms.Priti Bapna,
Ms.Sheetal Nandwana, Dilip Sharma and Kapil Sharma, which
have been rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which clearly reflect
instigation on the part of the present petitioner, thereby pointing
(Downloaded on 28/07/2022 at 08:35:45 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-805/2022]
out the role of the present petitioner in commission of suicide by
the deceased girl.
8. Also, at this stage, it is too early for this Court to make any
interference in the proceedings going on before the learned court
below.
9. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order
passed by the learned court below is perfectly justified, and does
warrant any interference by this Court, at this stage.
9. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner
do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner at this
stage.
11. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to take up all his legal issues before
the learned court below at the appropriate stage. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
205-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
