Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2290 (RAJ)

Lalita v. State

2013-12-16

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Cr. revision no. 133/2007. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the courts below. JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Cr. revision no. 133/2007. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the courts below. The learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur vide order dated 22.2.2008 has passed the following order:- " fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dks vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV ckM+h }kjk tks vkjksi lquk;k x;k gS og Hkh Li"V o fu;ekuqlkj ugha gSA vkjksi esa mYys[kuh; gS fd fnukad 23-1-03 ls yxkrkj ngst dh ekax ds lEcU/k esa eLrxhlk dks rax o ijs'kku dj mlds lkFk dzwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k x;k ysfdu bl vkjksi esa dzwjrk ds O;ogkj dh ?kVukvksa dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA blh rjg nwljk vkjksi gS fd eqLrxhlk dks fnukad 23-1-03 ls yxkrkj ngst dh ekax ds lEcU/k esa LosPNkiwoZd ekjihV dj PkksVsa igqapkbZ xbZA ;g vkjksi Hkh iw.kZ:i ls vLi"V gSA fnukad 23-1-2003 ls dkQh yEch vof/k rd yxkrkj ekjihV fd;s tkus dh ckr fdlh Hkh rjg fo'luh; ugha gks ldrh gS tcfd dksbZ pksV izfrosnu i=koyh ij ugha gS rFkk u gh ?kVukvksa ds lEcU/k eas iwoZ esa dksbZ fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ xbZA rhljk vkjksi Hkh iw.kZ:i ls vLi"V gSA bl vkjksi ls Li"V ugha gksrk fd dkSu lk lkeku dc fdlus fdl dks lkSaik rFkk ;g lkeku dc fdlus ugha ykSVk;kA bl lEcU/k esa U;kf;d fofu'p; vkfnR; fo#) ( jkt0 ) jkT; MCY;w0,y0lh0 ( jkt0 ) ;w0lh0 2006 isV 68 o t;nso fo#) ( jkt0 ) jkT; MCY;w0,y0lh0 ( jkt0 ) ;w-lh- 2006 ist 227 mYys[kuh; gSA mi;qZDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ls vf/kd ls vf/kd fuxjkuhdrkZ v'ouh ds f[kykQ /kkjk 498 Hkk0na0la0 ds rgr vkjksi izFke n`"V;k izdV gksuk dgk tk ldrk gS rFkk bl rjg ls fLFkfr esa mlds fo#) /kkjk 323] 406 Hkk-n0la0 ds rgr vkjksi dk dksbZ vkSfpU; izdV ugha gksrkA mYys[kuh; gS fd /kkjk 498, Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr vkjksi esa ngst dh ekax ds lEcU/k esa eqLrxhlk dh ekjihV fd;s tkus dk vkjksi 'kkfey gS dksbZ oLrq fo'ks"k fdlh O;fDr fo'ks"k fdlh O;fDr fo'ks"k dks lkSais tkus ckcr rF; ds vHkko esa /kkjk 406 Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr vkjksi fujk/kkj gSaA vU; fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds f[kykQ fdlh vijk/k ckcr dksbZ mfpr vk/kkj i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gSA fuxjkuhdrkZx.k jkeHkjkslh o Jherh 'kdqUryk dh /kkjk 323] 498, o 406 Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkdj mUgsa ;g vkjksi lquk;s tkus ckcr~ vfr0 eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV ckM+h }kjk ikfjr vkns'k o lEcfU/kr vkjksi i= fnukad 4-7-07 fujLr fd;s tkrs gS rFkk fuxjkuhdrkZ vo'ouh ds fo#) Hkh /kkjk 323] 406 Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkdj mls lquk;k x;k vkjksi i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa lEcfU/kr eftLV~sV dks fgnk;r nh tkrh gS fd i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ;k bl lEcU/k esa eqLrxhlk dks ijhf{kr fd;s tkus dh vko';drk gks rks mlds ijh{k.k ds i'pkr~ fuxjkuhdrkZ v'ouhdqekj dks /kkjk 498, Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr Li"V o fu;ekuqlkj vkjksi lquk;k tkosA " 3. In view of above, I do not think if just and proper to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.2.2008. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.The stay application also stands dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******