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 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Smt Kaushal Devi W/O Shri Madan Lal Gaur ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 12 September, 2018

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

         S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5602/2018

Smt Kaushal Devi W/o Shri Madan Lal Gaur B/c Dakot
                                                        ----Petitioner
                               Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
                                                     ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order 12/09/2018 Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 11.01.2005 petitioner filed a complaint for prosecution of Sohan Lal and others for offences under Sections 406, 420, 424 and 120- B IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said complaint on 17.05.2005 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was sent to the concerned Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur, for registration of the FIR. It is submitted that Investigating Agency submitted a final report in negative form.

Aggrieved against the same, petitioner had filed a protest petition and the said petition on 30.09.2005 was rejected, therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition and the revisional court below on 18.09.2017 remitted the matter to the trial court.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court on 21.01.2008 has taken cognizance of offence under Section 211 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-5602/2018] Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court of Magistrate could not take cognizance of offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner in view of prayer made under 195 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court of Magistrate could only file a complaint against the petitioner after holding an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Ms. Meenakshi Pareek, ld. PP, has not been able to defend the order of cognizance, hence, the present petition is accepted. Order of cognizance dated 21.01.2008 is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the trial court.

Trial court if so deemed necessary may institute an inquiry for offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Heena/142 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)