Bhartha Ram vs State on 10 July, 2008

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

                                             SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.1282/05
                                                       Bhartha Ram Vs. State


                                   1

         S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1282/2005
                     Bhartha Ram
                            vs
                   State of Rajasthan

DATE OF ORDER : - 10.7.2008

           HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr.SK Puniya, for the petitioner.

Mr.VR Mehta, Public Prosecutor.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the

trial court dated 3rd Sept., 2003 by which the trial court

took cognizance for offence under Sections 147, 447 and

427/149 IPC against the accused petitioner.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there

was dispute going on between the complainant and the

accused party and a regular suit was also pending. The

accused lodged FIR on earlier time wherein a criminal case

was registered against the complainant, however, the

complainant was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Then

in the year 2002, the present complainant lodged report

wherein the police submitted negative FR. Therefore, it is

clear that in a dispute of civil/revenue nature, the
SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.1282/05
Bhartha Ram Vs. State

prosecution has been launched without any reason and

police found no case made out. It is also submitted that

one of the accused Bhartha Ram who alone is the petitioner

before this Court is handicapped person and taking

cognizance against him deserves to be set aside.

I considered the submissions of learned counsel for

the petitioner and perused the reasons given by the trial

court in its order dated 3rd Sept., 2008 in detail. It appears

that the trial court found that there is material available on

record for taking cognizance for the offence referred above

and proceeded for prosecution of all the accused persons

including the petitioner. The petitioner’s defence could not

have been looked at the stage of cognizance by the trial

court, therefore, the petitioner may prove by evidence his

defence.

I do not find any illegality in the two orders passed by

the courts below. Hence, the misc. petition filed by the

petitioner is hereby dismissed.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

c.p.Goyal/-

Leave a Comment Cancel