Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Kumar vs State & Anr on 28 November, 2017
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1092 / 2016
Rajendra Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad, R/o Bhandrej, P.S. Sadar
Dausa.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan.
2. Sunita Veer D/o Sohan Lal Jat, R/o Badawar, Tehsil
Sujangarh, district Churu, Presently C/o Kevlaram Bishnoi,
Maansagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nishant Bora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.VS Rajpurohit, PP & Mr.Vipin Makkad.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order 28/11/2017 Heard.
The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed against the order 25.1.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in revision and the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.9/2012. The trial Court directed framing of charges under Sections 354, 507 and 509 IPC and Section 66A of the I.T. Act against the petitioner by the impugned order. The revisional Court partly accepted the revision and quashed the order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan to the extent of offence under Section 66A of the I.T. Act. Hence, this petition under (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1092/2016] Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Having heard and appreciated the arguments advanced at the Bar and after going through the impugned orders as well as challan papers, it is apparent that the respondent no.2 complainant has clearly levelled allegations of molestation, use of abusive and obscene language against the petitioner. The effect of complainant calling the petitioner on numerous occasions from her mobile number will have to be appreciated by the trial Court at the stage of final decision but considering the nature of allegations attributed to the petitioner by the complainant and other witnesses examined during investigation, I am of the firm opinion that the trial Court was justified in framing charge against the petitioner in the above terms. The order passed by the trial Court has also been affirmed in revision. Hence, the instant misc. petition is virtually a second revision in the garb of a misc. petition and is barred by virtue of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, it is not considered to be a fit case to interfere in the impugned orders while exercising this Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is hereby dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.
S.Phophaliya/-