Khalil Mohammad vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:8800)
2025 Latest Caselaw 7255 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Khalil Mohammad vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:8800) on 13 February, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:8800]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

              S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 27/2025

1.        Khalil Mohammad S/o Noor Mohammad, Aged About 56
          Years, R/o Potla, P.S. Gangapur, District Bhilwara.

2.        Jakir Mohammad S/o Khalil Mohammad, Aged About 38
          Years, R/o Potla, P.S. Gangapur, District Bhilwara.

3.        Irfan Mohammad S/o Khalil Mohammad, Aged About 36
          Years, R/o Potla, P.S. Gangapur, District Bhilwara.

4.        Yunus Mohammad S/o Jamaludin, Aged About 39 Years,
          R/o Potla, P.S. Gangapur, District Bhilwara.

                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sudhir Sarupariya
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

13/02/2025

The present criminal revision petition has been filed under

Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Section 438/442 BNSS) by the

petitioners against the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by learned

Additional District & Session Judge, Gangapur, District Bhilwara

whereby the learned trial court framed charges against the

petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 341/149, 323/149,

325/149 and 307/149 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to

the statement of injured, an omnibus allegation has been levelled

against the petitioners for causing injuries. Counsel further

[2025:RJ-JD:8800] (2 of 3) [CRLR-27/2025]

submits that three persons, namely Babu, Aslam and Belu got

injuries and according to the injury reports of aforementioned

three persons, injured Babu suffered simple injuries by blunt force

on his arms and legs, whereas injured Aslam sustained a simple

injury on his head by blunt force. Similarly injured Belu sustained

three injuries, out of which two injuries (one on his chest and the

other on his arm) are grievous in nature and dangerous to life.

Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order of framing charge

being per se illegal deserves to be quashed and set.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions

made by the counsel for the petitioners and prayed for dismissal

of the revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

impugned order passed by the trial court.

It is the admitted fact that three persons, namely Babu,

Aslam and Belu, got injured in this case. According to the X-Ray

reports, injured Babu suffered simple injuries by blunt force on his

arms and legs, whereas injured Aslam sustained a simple injury

on his head by blunt force. Similarly injured Belu sustained three

injuries which are on his chest and there are fractures on his 8 th,

9th and 10th ribs on the left side which are on his vital parts of the

body.

In view of the above, prima facie it appears that offence

under Section 307 is clearly made out and the trial court has

rightly framed charges against the present petitioners for the

aforesaid offences. There is no illegality or perversity in the

impugned order of framing charge.

[2025:RJ-JD:8800] (3 of 3) [CRLR-27/2025]

Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition being

bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 23-mSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)