Rajasthan High Court
Mahaveer And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 3 September, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:36565]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2540/2014
1. Mahaveer son of Netram
2. Omi son of Netram
3. Roop Singh son of Netram
4. Rajveer son of Shyam Lal
5. Dinesh son of Shri Shyam Lal
6. Bipendra @ B.P. son of Om Prakash @ Omi
All resident of Village Kolari, Police Station Kolari, District
Dholpur
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
2. Ghure son of Vidhya Ram, Resident of Village Kolari, Police
Station Kolari, District Dholpur
----Complainant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. G A
Mr. Anil Jain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 03/09/2024
This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Dholpur in Criminal Case No. 220/2010
whereby the trial Court sent the matter to the police for further
investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
complainant submitted a complaint at Police Station Kolari, District
Dholpur. The police investigated the matter and submitted challan
[2024:RJ-JP:36565] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2540/2014]
against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323,
341 and 34 IPC. Thereafter, trial was commenced and the trial
Court vide its order dated 22.12.2010 took cognizance against the
accused persons for the said offence(s). The complainant filed a
protest petition and the trial Court vide its order dated 13.07.2011
sent the matter to SHO concerned for further investigation.
Learned counsel further submits that once the cognizance
was taken against the accused persons, the matter could not have
been sent to the police for further investigation. However, the trial
Court has committed a material illegality. On this count, the
impugned order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the trial Court be set
aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant submits that in the alleged incident, brother of the
complainant died. In this view of the matter, offence under Section
302 IPC was found to be made out against the accused persons
but the police submitted the challan for the offence under Sections
323, 341 and 34 IPC only.
Learned Dy.G.A. has also defended the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material available on record.
From a perusal of the material on record, it transpires that
the police after completing the investigation, filed challan against
the accused persons for the offence under Sections 323, 341 and
34 IPC and on that basis trial Court vide its order dated
22.12.2010 took cognizance against the accused persons. At such
belated stage, when the trial court proceeded further in the matter
and took cognizance against the accused persons, it could not
[2024:RJ-JP:36565] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2540/2014]
have sent the matter to the Police for further investigation. In this
view of the matter, the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by the trial
Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be set-
aside.
It is so directed.
However, since the matter pertains to the year 2010 and
about 14 years have been passed, this petition is disposed of with
liberty to the respondent to avail appropriate remedy before the
trial court as per Law, whenever cause of action arises.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav-Tahir/240
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
