Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gopal S/O Shrawan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1569/2022
Gopal S/o Shrawan Lal, Resident Of Ratanpura, Police Station
Phagi, At Present Residing In Village Durgamata Ke Mandir, Near
Reliance Tower, Phagi, P.s. Phagi District Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta with Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh & Mr. Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahala, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 10/01/2023 By way of filing Revision Petition challenge against the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dudu, District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.21/2021 whereby, the learned trial Court directed to frame charges against the petitioner for offence under Sections 302, 120-B and 37 of the IPC.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, assisted by Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chauhan, vehemently and fervently contends that there is no material on record on the basis of which presumption can be drawn regarding sufficiency of material to put the accused to trial. He submits that the petitioner party is the Khatedar tenant of the land in question. Since the complainant party wants to take over the possession of the agricultural field by use of force, therefore, (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 11:41:32 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLR-1569/2022] apprehending the threat, the petitioner party submitted a revenue suit along with an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking temporary injunction before the Revenue Court in which vide order dated 12.08.2021, the learned Sub- divisional Officer passed an interim temporary injunction restraining the defendant, who are the complainant party in this case, and directing them to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. After getting information of the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, the complainant party tried to take over the possession of the field forcibly and on 17.08.2021, the complainant Hanuman, his wife Mathura Devi and his two sons Mahavir and Shanker made a trespass into the field and started sowing seeds. When this incident came into the notice of accused party, it is alleged that the petitioner told his nephew Mohan to take the tractor from his house and prevent the possession and destroy the crop if sowed down by the complainant. It is alleged that when the accused Mohan went to the field on a tractor, the victim Mathura Devi and his son tried to stop the tractor as a result of which, they sustained injuries and later she died in the hospital. In this regard, learned counsel submits that there is no evidence to show the presence of the petitioner at the crime scene. Neither he was driving the tractor nor did he make any exhortation to ram down the deceased. It is fervently urged that it is the best case of the prosecution that he told his nephew to take the tractor from his house and destroy the crop but there is nothing on record to show his active participation, culpability, or material to show that he hatched the conspiracy to commit the offence alleged.
The matter requires serious consideration. (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 11:41:32 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1569/2022] Issue notice to respondent No.2.
Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice. The complainant is directed to be impleaded as party respondent No.2 and learned counsel would submit an amended cause title during the course of the day.
Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice for State. Issue notice to respondent No.2- the complainant, returnable by 06.02.2023.
In the meantime, further proceedings in Sessions Case No.21/2021 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Case No.21/2021, Dudu, shall remain stayed.
(FARJAND ALI),J Keshav/54 (Downloaded on 12/01/2023 at 11:41:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)