Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohd. Rajak vs State Of Rajsthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8396) on 16 February, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:8396]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2475/2018
Mohd. Rajak S/o Mangu Khan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chhoti
Chhapri, Teh. Deedwana
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajsthan, Through Pp
2. Sabbir Khan S/o Mangu Khan, R/o Chhoti Chhapri, Teh.
Deedwana, Dist. Nagaur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
16/02/2024
The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section
482 of CrPC has been preferred by the accused-petitioner against
the order dated 28.04.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Deedwana (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned
Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 12/2016,
whereby the learned Revisional Court rejected the revision petition
filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 14.03.2016
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Deedwana (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court') in
Criminal Case No.52/2016, whereby the learned trial Court took
cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections
341, 323/149, 147 and 148 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
complainant submitted a report before the SHO, Police Station
[2024:RJ-JD:8396] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2475/2018]
Deedwana with the allegation that on 02.07.2015, his brother
Sattar was standing outside the house alone and at that time,
accused Akabar Khan along with some other people came and
inflicted injuries on his brother by lathi, fists, blow and also
snatched some articles. It is submitted that after investigation, the
investigating agency filed charge-sheet against the accused
persons, namely, Akabar Khan alias Nadeem Khan and Daud Khan
for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. Further, it is
submitted that in so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the
investigating agency filed a negative final report. Thereafter, the
complainant submitted an application for taking cognizance
against all the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that vide order dated 14.03.2016, the learned trial Court
recorded the statements under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC and
took cognizance against the present petitioner for the offence
under Sections 341, 323/149, 147 and 148 of IPC. It is submitted
that against the order dated 14.03.2016, the petitioner filed a
revision petition before the learned Revisional Court and the
learned Revisional Court vide order dated 28.04.2016 rejected the
revision petition and affirmed the order dated 14.03.2016, taking
cognizance against the petitioner for the offences aforesaid.
3. Further, it is submitted that vide order dated 28.04.2016, the
learned Revisional Court also rejected the revision petition of other
accused, namely, (1) Akabar Khan @ Nadeem S/o Alam Khan,
(2)Daud Khan S/o Alam Khan (3) Moti Khan S/o Alam Khan,(4)
Kadar Khan S/o Alam Khan, (5) Ayub Khan S/o Alam Khan, (6)
Arif Khan S/o Akabar Khan, (7) Sohel Khan S/o Akabar Khan, (8)
Liyakat Khan S/o Habib Khan, (9) Raeesa Bano W/o Akabar Khan,
[2024:RJ-JD:8396] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2475/2018]
(10) Hamida W/o Moti Khan, (11) Bashira W/o Kadar Khan, (12)
Gulshan Bano W/o Mahboob Khan, (13) Khatun W/o Ayub Khan,
(14) Mohd. Rafiq S/o Mangu Khan, (15) Raju D/o Daud Khan, (16)
Balkesh Bano W/o Daud Khan, however, challenging the said order
dated 28.04.2016, the aforesaid accused persons preferred S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1507/2016 and the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2017 partly
allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition finding that no case
was made out against the accused-persons and proceedings
against them were dropped.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from
the beginning, the investigating agency after thorough
investigation found that no offence is made out against the
petitioner too. Not only this, vide judgment dated 13.09.2022, the
learned trial Court granted the benefit of probation under the
Probation of Offenders Act to the main accused persons, namely,
Akabar Khan @ Nadeem Khan and Daud Khan. Thus, it is
submitted that this revision petition may be allowed and the
impugned orders may kindly be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 despite
service.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. I have perused the judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed by
the learned trial Court and the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
[2024:RJ-JD:8396] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2475/2018]
1507/2016, whereby proceedings against the co-accused persons
have been dropped. Since the main accused persons, namely,
Akabar Khan @ Nadeem Khan and Daud Khan have already been
granted benefit of probation vide judgment dated 13.09.2022 and
in view of the fact that proceedings against the similarly situated
co-accused persons have already been dropped by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2017, this Court
deems it appropriate in the interest of justice to allow the present
criminal miscellaneous petition.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.04.2016 and 14.03.2016
passed by the learned Revisional Court and the learned trial Court
qua the petitioner are quashed and set aside.
10. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
385-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
