Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 200 (RAJ)

Sarla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-24

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept notice for final disposal. He accepts the notice. 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the instant revision petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage. 3. By this criminal revision under Section 397/401, CrPC, the petitioner complainant has challenged the order dated 210.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh District Churu (for short the trial Court hereinafter), whereby the trial Court accepted the negative final report being FR No. 101/04 pertaining to FIR No. 61/04 of Police Station, Sidhmukh District Churu. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the negative final report submitted by the police was accepted by the trial Court in absence of the complainant. From the perusal of the order, it appears that on the relevant date i.e. 210.2004, the complainant was not present and in absence of the complainant, the trial Court accepted the negative final report filed by the police. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record a medical certificate in respect of the petitioner issued by Shri Vishan Ayurvedic Hospital, Hisar wherein it has been certified that complainant Sarla Devi was suffering from acute Pyrexia and vertigo and she remained under treatment of the said hospital and was advised to have complete bed rest for three days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that because of ailment, the petitioner could not appear. The trial Court, instead of straightway accepting the negative final report, could have adjourned the matter, if not for any longer period for a short period. The petitioner, being a lady and not maintained by her husband, was unable to attend the Court being sick on the relevant date and, therefore, the trial Court erred in accepting the negative final report without hearing the petitioner. 7. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that on the relevant date, when the trial Court accepted the negative final report, the petitioner was suffering from ailment I consider it just and proper to allow the revision petition and remand the matter to the trial Court for decision afresh after hearing the complainant. 8. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 210.2004 is set aside. 8. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 210.2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner. If the petitioner wishes to file any protest petition or lead any evidence it will be open for her to do so. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on 14.02.2005.