Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
(Bharat Lohni vs . The State Of Rajasthan & Anr.) on 26 March, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2128/2013 S.B. Cr. Misc. Stay Application No. 1890/2013 (BHARAT LOHNI VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.) Date of Order : : 26th March, 2014 PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat ) Mr. Virendra Godara ) Public Prosecutors for the State. BY THE COURT :
The application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. The defect(s) pointed out by the registry are over-ruled and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard.
This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with section 483 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.2.2013 of Additional Sessions Judge No.18 Jaipur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2011 directing to frame charge against the petitioner and against the order dated 8.3.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.18 Jaipur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2011 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 283, 332, 353, 333, 307, 188 IPC.
Brief facts of this case are that on 11.3.2010 the body of Babli, a girl from Uttrakhand Samaj was found dead-murdered after being brutally raped and badly mutilated in a Maruti Car on the outskirts of Jaipur and it was quite apparent from the state in which the body was found that the girl had been victim of gang rape and there she was brutally killed. The main accused was suspected to be related to a police official and co-accused persons also appeared to be influential people and because of this reason the police did not arrest anybody in the matter for a considerably long time. On 15.3.2010 the Uttrakhand Samaj decided to take out a peaceful rally on 21.3.2010 protesting against non arrest of the murderers of deceased Babli and to give a representation to the Chief Minister of the State. On 21.3.2010 the rally started from Statue Circle and reached Sardar Patel Marg, opposite BJP Party Office at Jaipur. Some police officials and constables stopped the rally and it was informed that five persons can go to the Chief Minister's office to give their memorandum. It is stated in the petition that while five leaders of Samaj left for Chief Minister's office and rest of persons sat down on the road, some police persons eve teased ladies and girls in the rally and when one person from the rally objected 10-15 police persons started hitting rally persons with sticks and batons. At this the ladies tried to save the persons then those ladies and children with them were also beaten. Police also started pelting stones. Some unidentified persons from the rally also started pelting stones. One of the stone hit Rajesh Meena Additional Superintendent of Police. On this turn of events, the persons who had gone to give memorandum were brought back and the people of the Samaj were badly beaten by the police. One Naresh Kumar working as Sub Inspector in Police Station Ashok Nagar lodged an FIR No. 127/2010 in respect of the said incident under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 283, 332, 353 and 307 IPC. In the FIR it was recorded that 17 persons were arrested at the place of incident. Charge sheet was filed against 52 persons. During the pendency of the proceedings three persons passed away Shanker Dutt Joshi, Dinesh Kapil and Madho Singh. The trial court heard arguments on the point of charge and directed to frame charge against the petitioner vide order dated 23.2.2013 and framed charges against the accused petitioner for the aforesaid offences vide order dated 8.3.2013. Against this orders, the petitioner has filed the present misc. petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has argued that the orders framing charge are contrary to the material collected on record and also ignores provisions for framing charge. None of the ingredients of the offences are set out and even prima facie made out against the accused petitioner. The Uttrakhand Society was just taking out a peaceful rally and there was no intention of it to harm any body. There is no evidence on record against the accused petitioner to indicate the existence of any unlawful assembly or any unlawful object or intention to harm anybody. It was prayed that the orders framing charge against the accused petitioner deserve to be set aside.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Virendra Godara, Public Prosecutors appearing for the State have opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it was argued that the trial court after hearing and considering the material on record framed the charge against the accused petitioner. The orders framing charge have been passed in accordance with law and call for no interference in this misc. petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the orders framing charge against the accused petitioner. Looking to the arguments raised in the criminal misc. petition and in the interest of justice, the order dated 23.2.2013 and order dated 8.3.2013 framing charge against the accused petitioner are quashed and set-aside; and the matter is remanded to the trial court to again hear the accused petitioner and consider the arguments raised in the criminal misc. petition, and pass a fresh order after hearing all the parties concerned, and the judgment, if any, to be submitted by the party concerned, in accordance with law.
The trial court shall hear the case, on the next date of hearing, which has been fixed by the trial court or at any other date of hearing, which the trial court would fix, as may be deemed fit and proper.
However, if the petitioner moves any application for exemption from personal attendance, the same should be decided by the trial court, in accordance with law.
It is made clear that if the petitioner(s) is/are not satisfied with the judgment, to be delivered by the trial court afresh on the charge argument, he/they is/are free to approach this Court again by way of filing a fresh petition.
The misc. petition stands disposed of with the above directions and the stay application also stands disposed of.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
DK/ All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.
Dilip Khandelwal PA