Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. TRIVENI DEVI SHARMA versus STATE AND ANOR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT. TRIVENI DEVI SHARMA v STATE AND ANOR - CRLR Case No. 163 of 2001 [2007] RD-RJ 2420 (2 May 2007)

(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 163/2001

SMT. TRIVENI DEVI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR.

DATE: 02.05.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. R.K. Daga for the complainant-petitioner.

Mr. B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Mr. Mahesh Gupta for the respondent No.2.

****

The instant criminal revision petition under

Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.

Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur City,

Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 329/97, whereby the Court below has discharged the accused-respondent No.2

Surendra Kumar Gyani from the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, whereas the Court below has framed charge against accused Harinarayan Saini for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

Aggrieving and dissatisfying with the said order of the trial Court dated 25.01.2001 to the extent that accused-respondent Surendra Kumar Gyani has been

(2) discharged from the offence under Sections 420 and 406

IPC, this revision petition has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the accused- respondent and upon careful perusal of the impugned order as also the relevant record, I find no illegality at this stage which requires any interference in the impugned order dated 25.01.2001 by this Court while exercising revisionary powers. The complainant- petitioner is always at liberty if after adducing the evidence any case is made out against accused- respondent Surendra Kumar Gyani, he can move proper application before the competent Court for taking cognizance and framing charge against the accused- respondent, but in any case this is not a stage which requires any interference.

Consequently, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

Record be sent back forthwith.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.