Shri Madhavi Stonex vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25624)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10146 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shri Madhavi Stonex vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25624) on 22 May, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:25624]                     (1 of 2)                         [CRLLA-33/2024]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 33/2024

Shri Madhavi Stonex, Proprietor Uma Shanker, Son Of Keshra
Ram, Abe About 44 Years, R/o Kishanghat, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer.
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Rajesh Kumar Bajaj S/o Unknown, R/o P/12, Girish
         Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Bagh Bazar, Kolkatta.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav
                                  Ms. Laxmi Bohra
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

22/05/2025

1. A perusal of the report dated 28.02.2023 revealing that the

warrantee could not be found at the given address and therefore,

a prayer was made for extension of time since the present

whereabouts of the respondent were not available at that time.

However, the learned Magistrate in its order-sheet dated

09.05.2023 has perhaps inadvertently noted that the respondent

was not residing at the given address and therefore, production of

fresh address was sought from the petitioner. It can not be

ignored that earlier service of summon was effected upon the

respondent at the same address. On 01.03.2017 an application

on his behalf had been moved for exempting from personal

appearance. Vide order dated 08.08.2023, the learned trial court

[2025:RJ-JD:25624] (2 of 2) [CRLLA-33/2024]

has dismissed the complaint for default of the complainant

petitioner for not furnishing the fresh address of the respondent. I

am of the view that reasonable and valid grounds exist in favour

of the petitioner to allow him to prefer an appeal against the

judgment of acquittal dated 08.08.2023.

2. Accordingly, the instant application seeking leave to appeal is

allowed. The memo of leave to appeal application shall be treated

and registered as an appeal. The opportunity of hearing shall be

given to the respondents at the time of hearing on the point of

admission.

3. Office to proceed.

(FARJAND ALI),J 74-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)