Amit Sharma S/O Shivcharan Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6445 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8016/2022

Amit Sharma S/o Shivcharan Sharma, R/o Ward No. 13, Kasba
Nagar, Bharatpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.      Heeralal Saini S/o Hanuman Prasad, Ex Sho Police Station
        Reengus ,district Sikar.
3.      Govind Kumar S/o Ashok, Plot No. 33, Mandrampura, Civil
        Lines, Sodala, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripunjay Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

29/09/2022

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02/07/2022

passed by the learned Trial Judge in case No. 410/2012 whereby

the prayer of the petitioner to exercise power to stop proceedings

under Section 258 Cr.P.C. has been declined.

The impugned order would reveal that detailed reason is

there for refusal of the prayer and the circumstances under which

the trial could not take proper progress for which the accused was

also responsible.

Section 258 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

"Power to stop proceedings in certain. In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-8016/2022]

recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge."

Object 1

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that

if the court opt to exercise jurisdiction of stoppage of proceedings,

it must record reasons for that.

This Court after hearing the parties does not find any

infirmity with the impugned order.

As such, this petition stands dismissed on merit.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of

the case without allowing any unnecessary adjournment in the old

matter and conclude the trial preferably within six months.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

ANIL SHARMA /6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)