SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manohar Mehta vs State & Ors on 2 May, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4081 / 2017
Manohar Mehta S/o Late Shri Gehrimal Ji Mehta, Aged About 70
Years, R/o B-1, New Shakti Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Arun Mehta S/o Shri Jhamandas Mehta, R/o A-1 New Shakti
Nagar, Udaipur, Raj.
3. Asha Mehta W/o Shri Gopal Mehta, R/o A-1 New Shakti
Nagar, Udaipur, Raj.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner : Dr. Sachin Acharya
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent Nos.2 3 : Mr. Mahesh Bora, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
02/05/2018

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated

30.08.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’) in

Criminal Revision No.44/2017, whereby the revision petition filed

by the petitioner has been dismissed. The said revision petition

was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated

24.04.2017 passed by the Special Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Udaipur (hereinafter to be

referred as ‘the trial court’) in FR No.2/2015 of Police Station

Ghantaghar, District Udipur arising out of FIR No.59/2013 of Police
(2 of 3)
[ CRLMP-4081/2017]

Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur, whereby the trial court has

rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 406

IPC for staying the proceedings of FR No.2/2015 of Police Station

Ghantaghar, District Udaipur till the decision is taken by the trial

court on the FR No.1/2015 of Police Station Ghantaghar, District

Udaipur submitted before it by the police.

The trial court vide order dated 24.04.2017 has rejected the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 406 IPC while

observing that at present it is considering the FR No.2/2015 of

Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur, submitted by the

police, and no order against the petitioner has ever been issued by

it at any point of time, therefore, the petitioner has no right of

audience in relation to the FR No.2/2015 of Police Station

Ghantaghar, District Udaipur and the prayer of the petitioner to

decide the FR Nos.1/2015 and 2/2015 of Police Station

Ghantaghar, District Udaipur together is not liable to be granted.

The revisional court is also of the opinion that the prayer of

the petitioner to decide FR Nos.1/2015 and 2/2015 of Police

Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur together is not tenable and

the trial court has rightly rejected the said prayer of the petitioner.

It is noticed that the FIR No.59/2013 of Police Station

Ghantaghar, District Udaipur was filed at the instance of

respondent Nos.2 and 3 against the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 406 IPC. In the said FIR, the police,

after thorough investigation, have submitted the FR No.2/2015

before the trial court while concluding that the allegations levelled
(3 of 3)
[ CRLMP-4081/2017]

into the said FIR have not been proved against the petitioner. At

this stage, the petitioner has moved the application under Section

406 IPC before the trial court and prayed that the FR No.2/2015 of

Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur be decided along with

FR No.1/2015 of Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur.

It is not in dispute that the trial court while taking into

consideration the FR No.2/2015 of Police Station Ghantaghar,

District Udaipur has not passed any order against the petitioner,

thought he is named as an accused by the complainant in the FIR

No.59/2013 of Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur.

In such circumstances, I don’t find any illegality in the

observations made by the trial court that since no adverse order is

passed against the petitioner in FR No.2/2015 of Police Station

Ghantaghar, District Udaipur, he has no right of audience in the

matter.

It is settled that at the time of considering the FR, submitted

by the police, there is no provision for giving opportunity of

hearing to the accused.

In view of the above, I don’t find any illegality in the

impugned orders passed by both the courts below.

Hence, no force in this criminal misc. petition, the same is

hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

Abhishek Kumar
S.No.8

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