SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajay Singh Sindhu vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6906/2019

1. Ajay Singh Sindhu S/o Jagbir Singh, Aged About 38
Years, Sonipat, Haryana.

2. Jagbir Singh S/o Dharam Singh Sindhu, Aged About 66
Years, R/o Sonipat, Haryana

3. Anju W/o Jagbir Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Sonipat, Haryana,
All petitioners are R/o D-169, Max Hights, Sector 62, G.T.
Road, Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan.

2. Sangeet W/o Ajay Singh, R/o Ward No. 4, Sangariya,
Hanumangarh.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi.

Mr. Kuldeep Mathur.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

27/02/2020

Heard.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report as

per which, after thorough investigation, the offences were not

found proved against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being father-in-

law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant. The

offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of the IPC were found

proved against the petitioner No.1 Ajay Singh Sindhu and hence,

the matter was placed before the Superintendent of Police,

Hanumangarh for approval who granted his consent on the

(Downloaded on 28/02/2020 at 08:39:52 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6906/2019]

proposed result. Thereafter, the file has been summoned by the

Additional Director General of Police (Civil Rights), Jaipur who had

directed re-investigation to be conducted by the Additional

Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh.

Having gone through the detailed factual report, I am of the

firm opinion that the conclusion drawn by the previous I.O. that

the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not prima facie involved in the

offences and that the case is found proved only against the

petitioner No.1 Ajay Singh, is absolutely justified. Thus, there is

no requirement for any further investigation in the case. The

investigating officer, who is presently carrying on the

investigation, shall file result of the investigation in the concerned

court in terms of the conclusion of the previous I.O..

A copy of this order shall forthwith be provided to the

investigating officer.

With these observations and directions, the misc. petition as

well as stay application are disposed of.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

45-Tikam/-

(Downloaded on 28/02/2020 at 08:39:52 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation