Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 147/2022
Keshuram S/o Shri Bhagwantaram, Aged About 28 Years, B/c
Kumhar, R/o Surdhana Chohanan Deshnok, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rajuram S/o Shri Manglaram, R/o Surdhana Chohanan,
Deshnok, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 117/2022
1. Amana Ram S/o Sardara Ram, Aged About 58 Years,
Surdhana Chouhanan, Teh. Kolayat Dist. Bikaner.
2. Lekh Ram S/o Amana Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
Surdhana Chouhanan, Teh. Kolayat Dist. Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Raju Ram S/o Sh. Mangla Ram, Surdhana Chouhanan,
Teh. Kolayat Dist. Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Prashant Panwar.
Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh PP
Mr. N.K. Bohra
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
02/03/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
(Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:13:03 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-147/2022]
2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
Criminal Revision Petition No. 147/2022:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
the petition of the humble petitioner may kindly be
allowed and the Impugned order dated 17.01.2022 passed
by the learned Additional Session Judge no.4, Bikaner,
(Rajasthan), in sessions case No.238/2020 be quashed."
Criminal Revision Petition No. 117/2022:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned
order dated 17.01.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge No.4, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.238/2020 may
kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed
by the respondent no.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. may
kindly be ordered to dismissed and the petitioners may
kindly be ordered to be discharged from the alleged
charges."
3. The limited issue in the present petitions, which falls for
consideration before this Court, is whether the learned Trial Court
vide the impugned order dated 17.01.2022, has erred in allowing
the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., preferred by the
complainant before it.
4. It is contended by Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Prashant Panwar appearing on behalf of the
petitioner (CW No.147/2022) and Mr. R.S. Choudhary, learned
counsel for the petitioner (CW No.117/2022) that the learned Trial
Court did not correctly appreciate the facts and circumstances of
the case, and incorrectly permitted arraignment of the present
petitioners as accused in the case, while allowing the application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. preferred by the complainant.
4.1 Learned counsel Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments
rendered in Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan,
(Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:13:03 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-147/2022]
(2017) 7 SCC 706; S. Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra
Chandak & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 226; Sarabjit Singh & Anr.
Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2009) 16 SCC 46; Yusuf
Chimpa & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2016 (4) Cr.
L.R. (Raj.) 1864; Vishambhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2018
(4) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1746, Phula Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Anr., 2011 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1567; Pyare Lal & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan, 2011 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1605; Hardeep
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2014 Cr. L.R. (SC) 310
and; Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2021 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 25.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
complainant oppose the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners and contend that the learned Court below did not
commit any error in allowing the aforementioned application.
6. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the
record of the case and the plethora of judgments cited at the Bar.
7. This Court finds that common purport of the case laws cited
on behalf of the petitioners, which do not render any assistance to
the case of the petitioners, is that the statutory requirements of
Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be fulfilled before allowing parties to be
arrayed to a trial. This Court further observes that the learned
Court below has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
only after being satisfied with the relevant evidences placed before
it, which is reflected in the impugned order, wherein the
petitioners were alleged to have been involved in the crime under
Sections 302 and 34 IPC, and the same was stated by the
complainant before the Police Authorities in the statement under
(Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:13:03 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-147/2022]
Section 161 Cr.P.C., but for some reason, it was not mentioned in
the F.I.R.
8. The said impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court
is therefore based on sound reasoning and logical findings, and
after appreciating relevant precedent laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
9. This Court, therefore, observes that mere arraying of the
parties to the trial in the Court below, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in
accordance with the evidentiary findings and in strict accordance
with the law, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners nor
the same adversely impact the petitioners in any way, and their
culpability, if any, in the crimes under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC, will be adjudicated upon, by the learned
Trial Court below in the final hearing stage of the trial.
10. This Court, in light of the above made observations, does not
deem it a fit case warranting its interference.
11. The present petitions are accordingly dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
158-159-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
