Mahendra Singh And Ors vs State Of Raj Asthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6186 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 563/2011

1.Mahendra Singh s/o Shri Ramchandra singh, aged about 36
years, r/o village Jilo, Tehsil neem ka thana, district sikar.
2.Ram chandra singh s/o shri Matu singh, aged about 58 years,
r/o village jilo, tehsil neem ka thana, district sikar
                                                       ----accused-Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.State Of Rajasthan through PP.
2.Sanjiv Chauhan s/o shri Hanuman singh chauhan, r/o nangli
Balaheer, PS Mandan, district alwar (Raj.)
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Anshuman Saxena
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.
                               Ms. Aradhana Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 12/09/2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 14/09/2022

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Neem ka Thana, District Sikar in

Criminal Revision No.28/07, whereby the revision filed by the

petitioners against the order dated 03.07.2007 passed by learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana in Criminal

Case No.329/97, framing charge under Section 6(2) of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant

had lodged the FIR against the petitioner No.1 under Sections

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-563/2011]

498A, 304B IPC. In the said FIR, after trial, petitioner No.1 was

acquitted by the trial court on 17.03.2001 under Section 304B IPC

and convicted under Section 498A of IPC. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that complainant had wrongly filed the FIR

under Section 6-1(3 ka) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against

the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits

that petitioners had filed the S.B. criminal miscellaneous

petition No.932/2006; Mahendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan, but the said criminal miscellaneous petition was

withdrawn by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners

also submits that in the said FIR, chargesheet was filed against

the petitioners under Sections 3(1) and 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 and trial court had taken the cognizance against the

petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that

trial court vide order dated 03.07.2007 wrongly framed charges

against the petitioners under Section 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition

Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner-

Mahendra Singh was acquitted by Competent Court under Section

304B of IPC and convicted under Section 498A of IPC. So, no

offence under Section 6(2) of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out

against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also

submits that chargesheet filed against the petitioners should be

sent to the Court of Sessions for joint trial. Learned counsel for

the petitioners also submits that petitioner No.1 had faced the trial

in previous chargehseet. So, he cannot be tried in present FIR for

the same offence. So, charges framed against the petitioners, be

quashed.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-563/2011]

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance the

judgment of Sanjeev Vs. Sher Singh; Criminal Miscellaneous

No.19439 of 2005, decided on 28th January, 2010.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.

It is an admitted position that the charges were framed

against the petitioners and some evidence was recorded in this

matter. So, in my considered opinion, petitioners can take all the

objections/averments at the time of final arguments before the

trial court. So, the present petition is devoid of merits and liable to

be dismissed.

Hence, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/95

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)