Sohan Lal & Ors vs State & Anr on 12 September, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2670 / 2011

1. Sohan Lal son of Late Shri Durga Shanker,

2. Om Prakash Sharma son of Shri Sohan Lal Sharma,

3. Vijai Kumar son of Shri Sohan Lal

4. Kamlesh son of Shri Sohan Lal
All residents of 24 Jaishri Colony, Dhulkot Road, Udaipur.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

2. Shrimati Vijay Laxmi wife of Shri Om Prakash daughter of Shri
Rewa Shanker, Resident of Rani Station, Rani District Pali
Rajasthan.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Singh for Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Rawal, PP
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
12/09/2017

1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc.

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated

14.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali

whereby he has dismissed the criminal revision petition

No.38/2009 and affirmed the order dated 29.08.2006 passed by

the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Desuri by which he has taken the cognizance against

the petitioner No.1 under Section 406 IPC and against the

petitioners No.2 to 4 under Section 406/34 of IPC.

(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-2670/2011]

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has

stated that in the earlier statement made by the complainant

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she had stated that she has received

the amount and articles of dowry and further, the offence under

Section 406 IPC against the petitioner No.1 and Section 406/34

IPC against the petitioner No.2 to 4 is not made out.

3. However, on bare perusal of the impugned orders, it is

clear that both the learned courts below have considered the facts

of the case at length including the precedent law and

contemplated that on bare examination of the evidence collected

by the prosecution, prima facie case against the petitioners is

made out. This Court also agrees to the propositions laid down by

two consecutive courts below and hence, no ground for

interference is made.

4. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

zeeshan/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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