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
