Rajjak @ Saddam Husain & Anr vs State & Anr on 13 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1261 / 2016

1. Rajjak @ Saddam Husain S/o Iqbal Khan, by caste Sherani
Muslim, resident of Village Sherani Abad, P.S. Khunkhuna,
Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Smt. Muskan Bano @ Gulshan @ Guli W/o Akhtar Khan, R/o
Village Sherani Abad, P.S. Khunkhuna, Tehsil Didwana,
District Nagaur (Raj.)

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan

2. Mohammad Rafiq S/o Lal Khan, B/c Sherani, R/o Village
Sherani Abad, P.S. Khunkhuna, Tehsil Didwana, District
Nagaur (Raj.)

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : None present.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Rathi, P.P.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
13/07/2017

The petitioners have been charged by the trial court for the

offences under Sections 498A and 307 I.P.C. They have

approached this Court by way of the instant revision in order to

challenge the order dated 26.7.2016 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur.

Having considered the grounds raised in the revision petition

and after going through the impugned order, it is apparent that

the petitioner Rajjak @ Saddam being the husband of the victim

Smt.Barkat Bano is alleged to have stabbed her on the abdomen

by a knife. She clearly alleged in her statement that the accused
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-1261/2016]

used to harass and humiliate her.

In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the trial

court committed no illegality, irregularity or perversity directing

framing of charges against the petitioners for the above offences.

The trial court examined the entire material available on record in

detail and then passed a well reasoned order framing charges

READ  (Sk. Md. Ashadur Rahaman vs Harun Kayal & Anr.) on 17 July, 2017

against the accused petitioners in the above terms and

simultaneously, discharged the two accused Iqbal and Jubaida

from the offences.

The impugned order does not suffer from any shortcoming

factual or legal so as to require interference.

Consequently, the instant revision is hereby dismissed as

being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

/tarun goyal/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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