Rajasthan High Court
Dron Pareek S/O Shri Pramod Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4825/2020
Dron Pareek S/o Shri Pramod Kumar Pareek, Aged About 33
Years, R/o House No. 6 Manu Vihar Keshav Vidhyapeeth Jamdoli
Ps Kanota Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Yogendra Kumar Joshi S/o Late Krishan Gopal Joshi, R/o
A-32/2 Flat No. 404 Sukh Samridhi Apartment Tilak
Nagar Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1049/2020
Yogendra Kumar Joshi S/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar Joshi, R/o A-
32/2, Flat No. 404, Sukh Smridhi Apartment Tilak Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dron Pareek S/o Shri Pramod Kumar Pareek, Aged About
33 Years, R/o 6, Manu Vihar, Keshav Vidhya Peeth,
Jamdoli Police Station Kanota, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni,
Mr. Manendra Singh,
Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Mr. Sudhir
Jain in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
(Petition) No.1049/2020
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
Mr. Sudhir Jain in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous (Petition) No.
4825/2020
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 28.03.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 31.03.2022
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-4825/2020]
Both these miscellaneous petitions are arising out of the
same order, so, both were decided simultaneously.
Petitioner-Dron Pareek had challenged the order passed by
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.12, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No.1248/2019
titled as Dron Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan in which revision
petition filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and the order of
the learned Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate
No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Criminal Case No.747/2018
titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Dron Pareek in which the order of
learned trial court for framing of charges under Section 420 IPC
was partly confirmed.
Petitioner-Yogendra Kumar Joshi challenging the order of
learned revisional court in which learned revisional court had
decided the revision without hearing the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Dron Pareek submits that
learned trial court wrongly framed the charges for the offence
under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had
challenged the order of framing of charge before the revisional
court and revisional court had partially allowed the revision
petition and charges under Section 406 IPC was dropped and
order pertains to charges under Section 420 IPC was upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that order of both
the courts below are arbitrary, erroneous, perverse, capricious,
without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that learned lower court as well as revisional court had
not appreciated the evidence collected by Investigating Officer in
right perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-4825/2020]
that complainant/respondent Yogendra Kumar Joshi is retired to
Additional S. P., so, fair investigation is not done in this matter. So,
the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the following judgments: (1) Prof. R.K. Vijaysarathy & Anr. Vs.
Sudha Seetharam & Anr. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739;
(2) B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr. reported in
(2007) 13 SCC 107; (3) Vinod Natesan Vs. State of Kerala &
Ors. reported (2019) 2 SCC 401 and (4) State of Karnataka
Vs. Muniswamy & Ors. reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that revisional court had decided the revision petition
without hearing the respondent, so, the matter be remanded back
to the revisonal court for deciding the matter afresh after hearing
the respondent.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon
the following judgments: (1) Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. in Criminal Appeal
No.645/2012 decided on 23.4.2012; (2) Uma Nath Pandey
& Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Criminal Appeal
No.471/2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6382/2007)
decided on 16.03.2009 and (3) Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.842/2016 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No.3314/2009) decided on 05.09.2016.
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-4825/2020]
It is an admitted position that revisional court had decided
the revision petition without hearing the complainant/respondent
Yogendra Kumar Joshi. It is essential in revision petition that
complainant should be heard, so, revision petition has not decided
by learned revisional court as per law. It is also made clear that
the present petitions are not decided by this court on merits.
Complainant/ respondent was necessary party and it is mandate
law that he should be heard while deciding the revision petition.
So, in my considered opinion, order of the revisional court is not
according to law and liable to be set aside.
As a result, criminal miscellaneous petition No.1049/2020
filed by the complainant/respondent Yogendra Kumar Joshi is
allowed and the order of the revisional court dated 08.11.2019 is
set aside. Revisional court is directed to decide the matter afresh
after hearing both the parties within two months. Parties are
directed to appear before the revisional court on 06.04.2022.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the
complainant/respondent Yogendra Kumar Joshi is allowed. So, the
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner Dron Pareek
does not survive.
All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /44-45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
