Subhash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13264)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8649 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Subhash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13264) on 10 March, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:13264]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2503/2022

1.       Subhash S/o Late Bihari Lal, Aged About 57 Years, B/c
         Kalal, R/o Gandhi Colony, Sumerpur Dist. Pali.
2.       Gajendra Kumar S/o Shankerlal, Aged About 55 Years, B/
         c Kalal, R/o Gandhi Colony, Sumerpur, Dist. Pali.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.      Mr. Babulal s/o Geesulal, resident of Post Office Road,
Sumerpur District Pali
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     None present
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/03/2025

1. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

2. A challenge is made to the order dated 01.05.2000 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Criminal Revision

No.54/1997, whereby he remanded the matter back to the

learned Magistrate to hear the parties again on the question of

cognizance.

3. The Court of Revision was of the view that the order dated

03.02.1997 was not in consonance with the law and this Court is

also of the same view since the order dated 03.02.1997 was

passed in utter disregard of the settled principles of law. In light of

the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Sarah Mathew vs. the Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases

and Ors. reported in 2014 (1) SCC 721, the period of limitation

[2025:RJ-JD:13264] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2503/2022]

runs from the date when the party would approach to the Court

not from when the file is taken up for passing of an order.

4. Since in this case the alleged act has been reported by the

victim during the period of limitation, therefore, the same was not

ousted from the period of limitation mentioned under Section 468

of the Cr.P.C. There is no error in the order passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Criminal Revision No.54/1997.

There is no force in this petition.

5. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 15-Ashutosh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)