SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tarsem Singh @ Semu vs State on 24 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2581/2018

Tarsem Singh @ Semu S/o Sh. Surendrapal Singh, Aged About
28 Years, B/c Ramgadhiya, R/o Ahemdpura, Teh. And Police
Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State, Through PP

2. Sarvjeet Kaur W/o Tarsem Singh, S/o Gurmail Singh, B/c
Ramgadhiya, R/o W.no. 5 Jaitsar, Police Station Jaitsar,
District Sriganganagar

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Sandhu
Mr. D.S. Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

24/08/2018

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

been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated

18.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as

‘the revisional court’), whereby the criminal revision petition

No.78/2017 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Complaint No.488/2017, whereby

the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the criminal

proceedings pending against him on the ground that cognizance
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2581/2018]

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC

cannot be taken against him because the incidents of cruelty,

breach of trust and causing hurt to the complainant took place

three years prior to the filing of the complaint by the respondent

No.2.

The trial court has dismissed the said application of the

petitioner and ordered for taking cognizance against him for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC while

observing that in the complaint as well as in her statement, the

complainant has clearly stated that a month prior to filing of the

compliant/FIR by her, she was treated with cruelty by the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the courts

below have not taken into consideration the fact that in the

complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner and

other persons, she has highlighted the incidents which took place

three years prior to filing of the complaint and no incident which

had happened within three years of the date of filing of the

complaint has been highlighted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

order of taking cognizance against the petitioner by the trial court

and confirmed by the appellate court are bad in the eye of law and

the same are liable to be set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc.

petition and submitted that there is no illegality in passing the

impugned orders passed by the courts below.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the impugned orders as well as the material

collected by the police during the course of investigation, I am of
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2581/2018]

the opinion that trial court as well as the revisional court have not

committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.

It is noticed that in the complaint filed by the respondent

No.2, she has specifically averred that a month prior from filing of

the complaint, she was treated with cruelty by the petitioner and

other persons. During the course of investigation, the police have

also recorded statements of complainant and other witnesses

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein also, many of the witnesses

have confirmed that few days prior to filing of the complaint by

the respondent No.2, the petitioner and other accused persons

demanded dowry and treated the respondent No.2 with cruelty.

Having taken into consideration the above peace of evidence

collected by the police, during the course of investigation, I do not

find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the cognizance cannot be taken against him for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC

because all the incidents and complaints took place three years

prior to the date of the filing of the complaint.

Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and

the same is hereby dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Taruna

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