Smt Meena vs State And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6282 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 136/2017

Smt Meena D/o Chhagan Lal, By Caste Soni, R/o Rai Colony, Barmer Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Gordhan Das S/o Ramchandra

3. Dashrath S/o Gordhan Das

4. Jaidev S/o Gordhan Das, Non Petitioners No. 2 To 4 All By Caste Soni, R/o Rai Colony, Barmer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. R.J. Poonia
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA-cum-PP
                               Mr. Rahul Sharma



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Order

23/08/2023

1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2016

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Barmer in

Criminal Regular Appeal No.46/2015 (92/2013) whereby, the

learned Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner

wherein the respondents Gordhan Das, Jaidev and Dashrath were

acquitted and took cognizance against the accused respondent

Tara Chand under Section 494 IPC. The said appeal was filed

against the orders dated 19.07.2010 and 06.04.2011 passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Regular

(2 of 4) [CRLR-136/2017]

Case No.250/2010 whereby the learned Judge ordered to take

cognizance against the accused respondents Tara Chand under

Section 494 IPC and against the accused Gordhan Das, Jaidev and

Dashrath for offence under Section 494 r.w. Section 120 IPC.

2. The matter is pending before this Court since the year 2017.

No one has appeared on behalf of petitioner since year 2018.

Today also, even in second round of call, no one appeared to

represent the petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through

the both the judgments under assail passed by the learned

Magistrate as well as by the learned Court of appeal.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner-

complainant has filed a complaint under Sections 120B, 420, 466,

467, 494 and 193 IPC against the above named respondents

before the trial Court alleging therein that her marriage was

solemnized with respondent Tarachand in the year 1989.

Thereafter, a divorce decree; filed by Tarachand before the learned

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barmer has been passed by

the learned Judge on the ground of impotency of Smt. Meena

against which, an appeal No.2219/2007 was preferred by the

petitioner wherein, vide order dated 04.010.2007, a Coordinate

Bench of this Court directed the petitioner not to re-marry but the

respondents conspired and solemnized the marriage of respondent

Tarachand. Whereafter, the said complaint under Section 156 (3)

Cr.P.C. was sent to the police station concerned for investigation.

An FIR No.300/2009 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali,

(3 of 4) [CRLR-136/2017]

District Barmer against the respondent Tarachand for offence

under Section 494 IPC and against respondents Govardhandas,

Dashrath and Jaidev for offence under Section 494 r.w. Section

120B of the IPC. After investigation, final report was filed in the

Court concerned.

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties vide order dated

19.07.2010 and 06.04.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Barmer, the learned Magistrate passed the order

taking cognizance against the above named respondents.

6. The said orders dated 19.07.2010 and 06.04.2011 passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer were assailed by the

petitioner by preferring a revision petition under Section 397 of

the Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Barmer, wherein after hearing the parties and making further

appreciation of evidence brought on record, vide order dated

18.11.2016 partly allowed the revision petition filed by the

petitioner and order dated 19.07.2010 was affirmed to the extent

of respondent Tarachand and has set aside the orders dated

19.07.200 and 06.04.2011 to the extent of rest of the

respondents. Hence, both the orders are under challenge before

this Court by way of filing the instant Criminal Revision.

7. For the purpose of examining the legality, correctness and

propriety of the orders impugned, I have minutely gone through

the facts narrated in both the orders but find nothing which may

call for any interference by this Court. The learned Court of

(4 of 4) [CRLR-136/2017]

revision has rightly set aside the order passed by the learned trial

Court after prudent application of material available on record.

8. Thus, viewing the matter from any angle, I find nothing to

interfere in the orders under assail. There is no force in the instant

revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

9. Records of the Courts below be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 185-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)