HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1960 / 2017
1. Dungarmal Son of Shri Ramaram, By Caste Soni, Resident of
Chittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore.
2. Ganpatlal Son of Shri Dungarmal, By Caste Soni, Resident of
Chittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Public Prosecutor.
2. Santosh Wife of Shri Ganpatlal Daughter of Shri Mool Chand, By
Caste Soni, Resident of Chittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment
Date of Judgment: 21/12/2017
The instant misc. petition is a glaring example of how the
facility of Free Legal Aid Scheme is being misused.
Shri R.S. Bhati, a lawyer on the penal of the Rajasthan State
Legal Services Authority was appointed to provide legal aid to the
petitioner under the Free Legal Aid Scheme by order dated
25.01.2017. He has filed this misc. petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated
16.08.2011 passed by the learned ACJM, Bhinmal, District Jalore
whereby, charges were framed against them for the offences
under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 IPC.
As this Court noticed that the petition was totally frivolous,
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-1960/2017]
comments were asked from the Secretary, Rajasthan High Court
Legal Services Authority who has furnished the same for courts
perusal. On going through the comments, it is apparent that the
Retainer Advocate gave an opinion that the petitioner’s case was
fit for filing a writ petition. This Court is of the view that the said
opinion was absolutely casual and lackadaisical because a writ
petition could not have been filed against an order framing charge
by the criminal court. The report also mentions that the Chairman,
Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur twice opined that the petitioner’s
case was not fit for providing free legal aid but thereafter, the
Executive Chairman, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority
sanctioned grant of legal aid to the petitioner. The discretion to
grant legal aid or not to a particular litigant vests exclusively with
the Legal Services Authority but, when legal opinion is sought
regarding filing of a particular proceeding in the High Court, it is
expected that the same should be offered with a thorough scrutiny
of the facts available on record so as to prevent filing of such
frivolous petitions. Under the sanction granted by the Legal
Services Authority, the learned Panel Lawyer has filed this petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 11.08.2017 against an order framing
charge passed by the court of the learned ACJM, Bhinmal, District
Jalore way back on 16.08.2011. Manifestly, the said order is
challengeable in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397
Cr.P.C. before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 90
days from the date of passing of the order. The petitioners did not
challenge the impugned order framing charge passed by the
ACJM, Bhinmal by filing a revision before the Sessions Court,
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-1960/2017]
Jalore. A report has been received from the trial court as per
which, four prosecution witnesses have already been examined at
the trial. Thus apparently, the learned Panel Lawyer has casually
filed this instant misc. petition without taking precaution to ensure
that a frivolous matter is not presented before this Court and also
that the petitioner have misused the forum of Legal Services
Authority by procuring the facility of free legal aid without any
justification.
In view of the fact that the order under challenge is revisable
and as trial has proceeded, apparently, the instant petition is not
maintainable and is dismissed as such.
A copy of this order be placed before the Hon’ble Executive
Chairman, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority .
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
tikam daiya/
