Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GEEGRAJ versus VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


GEEGRAJ v VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS - CRLR Case No. 1419 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 235 (11 January 2007)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1419/2006

GEEG RAJ Vs. VINOD KUMAR & ORS.

DATE: 11.01.2007.

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

Mr. A.L. Verma for the petitioner.

****

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 05.09.2006 passed by the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Khetri in Criminal Case No. 41/2006, by which he dismissed the complaint and refused to take cognizance for the offences under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 454, 380, 427, 166, 167, 177, 219, 120-B, 466, 467, 471 IPC.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order.

Vide order dated 31.08.2006, it appears that the application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 18.08.2006 with the request that the matter may be sent to police for investigation but refused to produce

(2) any evidence before the trial Court and also refused to sign the order-sheet. Therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed for arguments on 04.09.2006 and was taken up on 05.09.2006 and on that day again the petitioner refused to adduce any evidence and neither produce himself nor produce any witnesses in support of his complaint, therefore, the Court below on the evidence available on record, has examined the matter and observed that prima-facie no case is made out to take cognizance on the private complaint and thus, the complaint has been rejected.

I find no illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner himself is not produced and examined and also not produced any witness in support of his complaint, therefore, in such circumstances, no illegality is committed by the Court below in rejecting the complaint vide order dated 05.09.2006. No interference whatsoever is called for.

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

(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.