Prahlad Rai S/O Ramgopal vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 573 Raj/2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
            BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10864/2022

1.    Prahlad Rai S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 32
      Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police
      Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
2.    Mahesh S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 30 Years,
      Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police Station
      Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
3.    Ramgopal S/o Sonaram, Aged About 55 Years,
      Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police Station
      Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
4.    Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Ramgopal, Aged About
      53 Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police
      Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
5.    Bhinwaram W/o Chandra Ram, Aged About 36
      Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police
      Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
6.    Chandra Ram S/o Bhudaram, Aged About 73
      Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police
      Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
7.    Prabhuram S/o Hanman, Aged About 42 Years,
      Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police Station
      Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
8.    Smt. Santra Devi W/o Prabhuram, Aged About
      40 Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police
      Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
9.    Smt. Santosh W/o Mohanram, Aged About 45
      Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police
      Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
10.   Smt. Manju Devi W/o Jagdish, Aged About 38
      Years, Resident Of Village Udaipura, Police
      Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj).
                                                       ----Petitioners
                              Versus




           (Downloaded on 19/01/2023 at 11:59:35 PM)
                                  (2 of 4)                [CRLMP-10864/2022]


1.      State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Public
        Prosecutor.
2.      Smt. Jamna Devi W/o Babulal, Resident Of
        Udaipura, Police Station Dantaramgarh, District
        Sikar (Raj).
                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)       :    Mr. Ashvin Garg
For Respondent(s)       :    Mr. C G Chopra, PP


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
                                Order

17/01/2023

;[email protected];qDrx.k dh vksj ls ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k nkarkjkex< ftyk lhdj }kjk fuxjkuh ;kfpdk la[;k [email protected] esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 07-10-2022 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh ftlds ek/;e ls ;[email protected];qDrx.k dh fuxjkuh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh x;h rFkk vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] nkarkjkex<] ftyk lhdj }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k [email protected] iqfyl Fkkuk nkarkjkex< ftyk lhdj ls lacaf/kr vafre izfrosnu la[;k [email protected] dks vLohdkj dj ;[email protected];qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 143] 341] 323] 447 o 435 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds vkjksi esa izlaKku fy;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;[email protected];qDrx.k dk fuosnu gS fd bl izdj.k esa ifjoknh i{k gh vkdzked Fkk vkSj muds }kjk orZeku ;[email protected];qDrx.k ds lkFk ekjihV dh] mudh d`f"kHkwfe ls csn[ky djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ftlds laca/k esa ,d izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djok;h x;h Fkh

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-10864/2022]

ftlesa ckn vuqla/kku vkjksi i= Hkh is'k gsk pqdk gS] dzksl izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls cpus ds fy, feF;k vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd bl izdj.k esa ckn vuqla/kku iqfyl }kjk vafre izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj dksbZ ekeyk izekf.kr ugha ekuk ijarq v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk i;kZIr lkexzh ugha gksus ds ckotwn ;[email protected];qDrx.k ds fo:) izlaKku fy;k x;kA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk fof/klEer vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA gLrxr ekeys esa ifjoknh;[email protected] }kjk ;g vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS fd ;[email protected];qDrx.k us ,djk; gksdj mlds [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe ij dCtk djus dh dksf'k'k dh] mlds o mlds ifr ds lkFk ekjihV dh rFkk mldh vks<uh gVkdj mldh yTtk Hkax dhA iqfyl us dqN xokgku ds c;ku rFkk ?kVuk dh [email protected];rk ij iz'ufpg~u yxkrs gq, vafre izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu v/khuLFk eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk ihfMrk ds /kkjk 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ys[kc) c;kuksa] pksV izfrosnu o vU; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij mijksDr izlaKku vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k rFkk fuxjkuh U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh foLr`r vkns'k fy[kk;k tkdj ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, izlaKku vkns'k dh iqf"V djrs gq, fuxjkuh ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh x;hA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-10864/2022]

Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%& "7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has

set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court

has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not

permissible at this stage and while deciding the application

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this

Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted

by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot

get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being

considered."

mijksDr laiw.kZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, fo}ku v/khuLFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; rFkk fo}ku fuxjkuh U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ;Fkkor jgus ls fdlh U;kf;d izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx gks jgk gks] ,slh fLFkfr izdV ugha gqbZ gSA /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS vkSj izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk blh Lrj ij [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

Murari Lal Sharma /22

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)