Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sant Ram vs State on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4507/2019
1. Sant Ram S/o Lichhaman Ram, Aged About 65 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident Of 3-A Chhoti Sadbhawna Nagar, Sri
Ganganagar.
2. Ranjeet Sahu S/o Rameshwar Lal Sahu, Aged About 55
Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Sahulwala, Tehsil And
District Sri Ganganagar.
3. Rajendra Sahu S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 64 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident Of Sahulwala, Tehsil And District Sri
Ganganagar.
4. Jodha Ram @ Hari Chand S/o Uda Ram, Aged About 58
Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Shivpur Head, Teh. And
Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
5. Harbans Lal S/o Sant Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident Of 3-A/1, Teh. And Dist. Sri
Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Gopi Ram S/o Sh. Ram Lal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of
Sahuwala, Teh. And Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP
Mr. Binja Ram
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
11/10/2022
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy involved in the present petition is no more res-
integra, as it is decided by this Court in the same situation
between the same parties in the matter of Sant Ram Vs. State
(Downloaded on 12/10/2022 at 08:30:00 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4507/2019]
of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.1433/2021) decided on 15.03.2021. The order dated
15.03.2021 reads as follows :-
"The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 22.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/
ST (Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Sri Ganganagar in
Criminal Revision No.1/2019 whereby while dismissing
the revision petition, he affirmed the order dated
4.7.2018 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Sri Ganganagar in criminal case
No.639/2018, taking cognizance against the petitioner
for offence under Sections 447/149, 379/149, 147 and
148 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned trial court before taking the cognizance of
alleged offences has failed to consider the fact that the
respondent No.2 himself in complaint has admitted the
fact of pendency of the civil Suit but the learned trial
Court while relying upon the evidence of the
complainant has taken the cognizance of alleged
offences against the petitioner. The revisional Court has
dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner
only on the ground that the order of cognizance passed
by the learned trial court is interlocutory order against
which the revision petition is not maintainable.
Therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the
revisional court to decide the matter afresh on merit.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as
counsel for the complainant submits that the impugned
order of framing charge is perfectly justified and
requires no interference from this Court.
I have considered the submissions advanced before
me and gone through the impugned order of framing
charge.
From the perusal of the revisional court order, it
appears that the learned revisional court has passed the
impugned order without on merit. No reasons or findings
have been assigned by the learned revisional court while
rejecting the revision of the petitioner. In these
circumstances, the order of revisional Court deserves to
be set aside in the interest of justice.
In view of above, the order mpugned dated
22.01.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Downloaded on 12/10/2022 at 08:30:00 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4507/2019]
(Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Sri Ganganagar is set
aside and the case is remanded back to the revisional
court with the direction to pass an appropriate and
speaking order on merit, in accordance with law, after
giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and
taking into consideration the evidence available on
record.
The instant misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay
petition also stands disposed of. "
Upon such joint submission made by learned counsel for the
parties, the present petition is also disposed of in light of the
aforequoted judgment.
Thus, the order impugned dated 12.07.2019 passed by
learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases,
Sriganganagar is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded
back to the revisional court with a direction to pass an appropriate
and speaking order on merit, in accordance with law, after giving
opportunity of hearing to both the parties and taking into
consideration the evidence available on record.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
192-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
