SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dungarmal & Anr vs State & Anr on 21 December, 2017

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/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh