Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 89 (RAJ)

Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-Defect pointed out by the office is waived. 2. Let the revision petition be registered on regular number. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (for short the revisional Court) in criminal revision No. 26/2003 whereby the revisional Court set aside the order dated 26.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur (for short the trial Court) taking cognizance of an offence under Section 323 IPC against respondent No. 2 to 4 on a negative final report filed by the police. The order taking cognizance was challenged by respondent No. 2 by way of revision before the revisional Court. On close scrutiny of the entire material placed before the revisional Court, the revisional Court came to the conclusion that the injuries alleged to have been suffered to Ravi Kumar son of the complainant were not caused by any of the accused-respondent. On the contrary, there was some altercation and some persons entangled in which Ravi Kumar son of the complainant fell down and suffered injuries. However, the complaint alleged that his son was assaulted, whereas injured Ravi Kumar himself did not say so in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. On the contrary, he admitted that in the process of altercation, he fell down and suffered certain injuries. On these premises, the revisional Court set aside the order of the trial Court taking cognizance. 5. I have carefully gone through the orders of the trial Court as well as of the revisional Court. There is no dispute that the police has filed the negative final report and the opinion gathered by the police was on the basis of statement of injured himself as also the other witnesses. 6. In the circumstances, therefore, the revisional Court was justified in setting aside the order of the trial Court taking cognizance. There appears to be no sufficient material to proceed against the accused-respondents. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error or illegality in the order of revisional Court. The revision petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.