Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:6067)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5751 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:6067) on 30 January, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:6067]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1260/2024

1.        Om Prakash S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
          Mithadi Patta, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu.
2.        Vinod S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mithadi
          Patta, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu.
3.        Sonu S/o Lilu Ram, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Mithadi
          Patta, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.        Hansraj S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
          Vill. Mithadi Patta, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Churu.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Dr. Rohit Kaswan
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
                                    with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

30/01/2025

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 05.02.2024 passed by learned

Additional District & Session Judge No.1, Rajgarh, District Churu

whereby the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the

respondent-complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and took

cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 147,

148, 452, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 149 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two

independent witnesses namely Shankerlal and Karnaram did not

[2025:RJ-JD:6067] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1260/2024]

deposed about the involvement of the present petitioners in

commission of the offence. Counsel submits that the Police after

thorough investigation filed negative Final Report against the

petitioners refraining their involvement in the alleged offence, but

the learned trial court without applying the judicial mind allowed

the application filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance

against the petitioners for aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned

order of cognizance being per se illegal, deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

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 four persons namely Hansraj,

Omprakash, Balveer and Dilip Singh, got injured in this case.

According to the X-Ray reports, injured Hansraj suffered a

grievous injury on his right forearm, whereas injured Balveer

sustained a head injury, which is found to be grievous in nature

and dangerous to life. Similarly injured Omprakash sustained a

head injury which is also grievous in nature and dangerous to life.

Furthermore, injured Dilip Singh sustained eight injuries, out of

which, injury Nos.2 & 8 are grievous in nature and dangerous to

life. The statements of the aforesaid injured witnesses consistently

show the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the

alleged offence.

IN view of the above, the trial court has rightly taken

cognizance against the present petitioners for the aforesaid

[2025:RJ-JD:6067] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1260/2024]

offences. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order

of cognizance.

Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition being

bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 6-mSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)