Pravin Sonkar & Anr vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2640 / 2017
1. Pravin Sonkar, Aged About 30 Years

2. Navin Sonkar, Aged About 39 Years, Both Sons of Shri Gulab
Chandra Sonkar, by Caste Khateek, R/o 223, New Minal,
Residence J.K. Road, Bhopal (M.P.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan

2. Smt. Bhumika W/o Pravin Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, House
No.72, Nakoda Complex, Hiran Magri, Sector-04, Udaipur.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
19/12/2017

By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioners have approached this Court for challenging the order

dated 13.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.2, Udaipur in revision whereby, the learned revisional

court affirmed the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned

ACJM No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.304/2016 framing charge

against the petitioner Praveen for the offences under Sections

498A and 406 IPC and against the petitioner Navin Sonkar for the

offences under Sections 498A and 354 IPC.

On the previous date of hearing i.e. on 11.12.2017, this

Court had made an observation that whether a misc. petition can
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-2640/2017]

be maintained in the event of dismissal of the revision petition

against the order framing charge. The said question was posed in

view of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel Shri Bora drew the

Court’s attention to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the

case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited Ors. vs. State

of Maharashtra Anr., reported in (2009)2 SCC 370 and

urged that in case, an abuse of process is shown in the

proceedings, the bar contained in Section 397 Cr.P.C. would not

come in the way of the court to entertain the misc. petition

despite the dismissal of the revision by the Sessions Court against

the order framing charges.

Having appreciated the arguments advanced by learned

counsel Shri Bora and after going through the said judgment

referred to supra as well as the relevant provisions, this Court is

convinced that where, abuse of process is shown in the

proceedings, the bar contained in Section 397 Cr.P.C. would not be

a rider against this court’s power to entertain a misc. petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite dismissal of a revision by the

Sessions Court against an order passed by the court of the learned

Magistrate. However, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, the inherent powers conferred upon this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. in any event are to be exercised sparingly and

only when, a sheer abuse of process is shown to the court and not

in routine.

While keeping in mind the said principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have appreciated the arguments

advanced by learned counsel Shri Bora representing the petitioner
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-2640/2017]

and learned Public Prosecutor Shri Rajpurohit and have gone

through the impugned orders and the challan papers.

Two courts of competent jurisdiction have appreciated the

entirety of material collected by the I.O. in the charge-sheet and

came to a concurrent conclusion that the petitioners should be

charged and tried in the above manner. The statement of the

complainant recorded during investigation clearly gives rise to

circumstances warranting framing of charge and trial of the

accused petitioners for the above offences. The trial court duly

appreciated the material available on record and formed the

requisite opinion in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C. while passing the

order dated 15.02.2017.The documents referred to by Shri Bora

being the various applications filed by the complainant before the

Army authorities do not form a part of the record of the case at

present and thus, cannot be taken into account in view of ratio

decided by the Supreme Court decision in the case of State Of

Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2003 SC 1512,

2003.

Hence, I am not inclined to entertain this misc. petition

which is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

Tikam/10

Leave a Comment

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