Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Trilok Singh vs State & Anr on 24 August, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1881 / 2017
Trilok Singh S/o Karam Singh, By Caste Jatsikh Resident of Gram
Lohara Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar (abnormal)
Through His Mother Balwant Kaur W/o Karam Singh by Caste
Jatsikh Resident of Gram Lohara Tehsil Raisinghnagar District
Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Simarjeetkaur W/o Trilok Singh D/o Mandar Singh, B/c Jatsikh
Resident of Gram Lohara At Present Kakusinghwala Tehsil
Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kaushal Gautam
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 24/08/2017
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 04.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, whereby the learned court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 328, 329 and 330 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there was a limited prayer made to act upon in accordance with Sections 328, 329 and 330 Cr.P.C. for determination of condition of the mind. However, the learned court below has dismissed the application on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioner shall be free to lead any evidence in this regard and since no (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1881/2017] document has been produced by him, therefore, the application is not worth-entertaining.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said provisions of the Cr.P.C. i.e. Sections 328, 329 and 330 are for the purpose of the special condition of mind, and hence, it was the duty of the learned court below to have ascertained the same before moving ahead with the proceedings.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that Sections 328 and 329 are clearly such provisions, which ought to be acted upon by the learned court below, as the specially-abled persons do not have sufficient maturity of mind and have to be protected by taking proactive measures. Such intention of pro-activity is depicted in the statute itself, and therefore, ought to be acted upon.
6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the present misc. petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 04.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar is quashed and set aside, only to the extent that the learned court below shall constitute a Medical Board or take the opinion of the medical authority regarding unsoundness of mind of the petitioner for conducting the further proceedings accordingly.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-