Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Palu Bai vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 January, 2021

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 27/2021

1.      Palu Bai W/o Shiv Bhagwan D/o Ram Lal, Aged About 25
        Years, Halibava Keriya, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore,
        At Present Vishnu Colony, Barmer.
2.      Shiv Bhagwan S/o Ram Pratap Bishnoi, Aged About 26
        Years, Halibava Keriya, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore,
        At Present Vishnu Colony, Barmer.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.      The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore.
3.      Sho, Police Station Chitalwana, District Jalore.
4.      Raghu Nath S/o Jala Ram, Girdhardhora, Chitalwana,
        District Jalore.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Surendra Bagamalani
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit PP for the
                                State.



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order 22/01/2021 In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

This misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for correction in the cause title of the main petition as well as the particulars of the respondent No.2, 3 & 4 in the final order dated 14.01.2021 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.193/2021.

Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners submits that by mistake, during drafting, the addresses of respondents No.2,3 (Downloaded on 22/01/2021 at 09:03:56 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMA-27/2021] & 4, have been mentioned as "District Barmer", whereas the correct addresses of respondent No.2,3 & 4 is "District Jalore". Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners further submits that on account of such bonafide error in drafting, the wrong addresses of the respondent No.2, 3 & 4 also formed part of the aforementioned order dated 14.01.2021.

For the reasons mentioned in the application and the submissions made on behalf of the applicants/petitioners, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the addresses of respondent No.2, 3 & 4 shall be read as "District Jalore", instead of "District Barmer". Thus, henceforth, such correction made in the addresses of the respondent No.2,3 & 4 shall also form part of the aforementioned order dated 14.01.2021, including the cause title mentioned therein. The amended cause title already filed is taken on record.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

282-SKant/-

(Downloaded on 22/01/2021 at 09:03:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)