Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabhu Nath Singh vs State on 5 January, 2011
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 142/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
Prabhu Nath Singh
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 142/2010
Date of Order : 05.01.2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI
Mr. Rakesh Matoria for the petitioner
Ms. Chandralekha - Public Prosecutor
BY THE COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Prabhu Nath Singh is the father of the principal accused Nagendra Singh, against whom charge for committing rape has been framed by the learned trial court and the learned trial court ordered to frame charge against the present petitioner under Section 366 read with Section 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC, Page 1 of 4 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 142/2010 there is no allegation against the present petitioner regarding any conspiracy but in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, the prosecutrix implicated the present petitioner only to the extent that just after the incident, when the principal accused and the prosecutrix were living in Bihar, the present petitioner visit there. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the attendance register of the Shri Ganganagar State Sugar Mills Limited dated 29.05.2008, the present petitioner was in the office with effect from 06.04.2008 to 10.04.2008, therefore, his presence in Bihar on the relevant date cannot be believed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 is improper, illegal and perverse, therefore, the order impugned may be set aside.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor defended the order of the learned trial court and further argued that even on the basis of the statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded later on, the charge as framed can be framed. She further submits that the attendance certificate issued by the competent authority of the Shri Ganganagar State Sugar Mills Limited shall be considered during the course of the trial.
I have considered the rival contentions of both the Page 2 of 4 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 142/2010 parties and pondered over the facts of the case.
Under Section 397 and 401 CrPC, it is evident that High Court can interfere in all cases of incorrectness, illegality or impropriety of any finding, sentence or order or irregularity of any procedure of the inferior courts by taking such measures or passing such orders as could be passed by an appellate court. The idea behind it is to correct miscarriage of justice which may arise from various reasons, namely, misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harsh treatment, but at the same time, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has wrong view of the law or misappreciated the evidence on record. The powers under these sections can only be exercised when it is found that order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial court has illegally passed the order.
In the present case, as per the argument of the Page 3 of 4 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 142/2010 learned counsel for the petitioner himself, the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 CrPC implicated the present petitioner as visitor of the place where she was living with principal accused Nagendra Singh togather for a considerable time. So far as the attendance certificate issued by the competent authority of the Shri Ganganagar State Sugar Mills Limited is concerned, its relevance shall be considered by the trial court after adjudication and proper evidence.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 08.01.2010 passed by learned Special Additional District and Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Shri Ganganagar does not suffer from any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety, therefore, this revision petition is dismissed at admission stage.
[KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI],J.
Pramod Page 4 of 4