Rajasthan High Court
Mohd Sharif vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 20 September, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 661/2018
Mohd. Sharif, S/o Late Shri Sohrab Khan B/c Muslim, R/o House
No. 628, Emam Chowk, Bas Badanpura, Ps Galta Gate, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sehban Naqvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
20/09/2022
This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., against the order dated 16.09.2015 for quashing of the
order of cognizance of offences under Sections 9/51 of Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 3/25 (1B)A, 5/27(II), 12/26
Arms Act, 1959.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial
court vide order dated 16.09.2015 wrongly took the cognizance
against the petitioner under Section 9/51 of Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972 and Sections 3/25 (1B)A, 5/27(II), 12/26 Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that trial court
wrongly framed the charges under Section 9/51 of Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 3/25 (1B)A, 5/27(II), 12/26
Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as
per Section 9/51 of Wildlife Protection Act, SHO, Police Station
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-661/2018]
Chaksu, Jaipur Metropolitan, is not competent to file the
chargesheet. So, cognizance order as well as order of framing of
the charges be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that petitioner had option to file the petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of filing of revision petition. So,
petition filed by the petitioner be allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the
judgments of Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.; Criminal Appeal No.2055/2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.2272/2007), Vijay and Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.; Crl.A.No.1179/2016 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No.2499/2015), Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.; Criminal Appeal No.842/2016 (Arising out
of SLP (Crl.) No.3314/2009), Akshay Kumar Actor Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B.Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition)
No.6165/2017, G.B.Reddy & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr.; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.860/98,
1154/1998, Subhash Chand Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan; S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1020/2015, Ashwini Kumar
Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan; Criminal
Revn.Petn.No.704/2000, Thimme Gowda Vs. State of
Karnataka; Criminal Petition No.4968/2014.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
the petitioner has liberty to challenge the order of the cognizance
as well as order of framing of charges by way of revision petition.
So petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-661/2018]
It is an admitted position that petitioner has liberty to
challenge the order of framing of the charges by way of revision
petition before the Court of Sessions. So, in my considered
opinion, petitioner should file revision petition before the Court of
Sessions.
So, present petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to challenge the order of framing of the charges before
the Court of Sessions.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/13
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
