Jabber Singh vs State on 1 June, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 313 / 2017
Jabber Singh S/o Shri Rawat Singh, aged about 60 Years, By
Caste, Rajpurohit, resident of Village Aakdeda, Police Station
Sandairav, District – Pali.

—-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.S. Gill
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, P.P., for the State
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
01/06/2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor and perused impugned order dated 28.09.2016

passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur. By

the order impugned, learned trial Court has rejected the

application of petitioner-complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to

summon Paras Singh and Chandan Singh sons of Kishore Singh,

and Anusuiya d/o Kishore Singh, as accused persons, to be tried

with other accused persons in the case involving offence under

Sections 498A and 304B IPC.

Pursuant to FIR No.243/2012 of Police Station Phalodi,

District Jodhpur, police submitted charge-sheet against some

accused persons while dropping the aforementioned incumbents.

During investigation, accused Kishore Singh and Ayodhya Devi
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-313/2017]

were not apprehended, therefore, against them charge-sheet

under Section 299 Cr.P.C. is submitted.

Learned Magistrate took cognizance against accused persons

and committed the case to learned trial Court. The learned trial

Court framed charge against accused Shyam Singh and proceeded

for trial. During the course of trial, three prosecution witnesses

were examined. Taking note of the statements of these three

witnesses, petitioner laid an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

to summon aforesaid incumbents as accused persons to be tried

with other accused, who are named as accused in the charge-

sheet. Learned trial Court, upon examining the evidence of the

prosecution and while relying on the legal precedents, has

declined the prayer of petitioner. Learned trial Court has

discussed the powers of Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in light of

the law propounded by Supreme Court and has found that, prima

facie, evidence is not of sterling worth so as to indicate that these

incumbents appear to be guilty of the offence. With these

findings, learned trial Court has rejected the application.

Upon examining the matter, in my opinion, learned trial

Court has not committed any manifest error of law and fact in

exercise of its discretion and therefore, the said order cannot be

subject matter of judicial review in exercise of revisional

jurisdiction.

(3 of 3)
[CRLR-313/2017]

While recording my satisfaction about correctness, legality

and propriety of the impugned order, I feel disinclined to interfere

in the matter.

Consequently, petition fails and the same is hereby

dismissed summarily.

(P.K. LOHRA)J.

Bharti/7

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *