Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1827 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-14

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Misc. application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "It is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble court may very graciously be pleased to accept this misc. modification application and both the trial arising out from FIR No. 492/2012 P.S. Nayapura, Kota and another FIR No. 45/2013 PS Dadawarl, Kota pending trial before Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota, District Kota be segregated and matter arising from FIR No. 45/2013 be sent back to the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota. Or without prejudicing my earlier prayer In Sessions case No. 17/2013 titled State v. Rajendra Salnl , final arguments may be heard by the court concerned and Judgment be pronounced. Any other appropriate order or direction granting relief may kindly be Issued In favour of petitioners." 2. Thereafter, the notices were Issued and upon that Mr. Madhav Mitra, Advocate appears for respondents no. 2 and 3 and Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP appears for the State of Rajasthan. 3. Dr. Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prayer, which has been made through this application should be : accepted on the grounds mentioned by him In his application. 4. On the other hand Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the order dated 27.1.2014 had been passed on the basis of request made by learned counsel for both the parties. 4. On the other hand Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the order dated 27.1.2014 had been passed on the basis of request made by learned counsel for both the parties. The operative part of the order dated 27.1.2014 is reproduced as under: nksuksa i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dh la;qDr izkFkZuk ij bl ij nkf.Md fofo/k ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k fuEu izdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 1- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izFke izdj.k tks izFke lwpuk la[;k 492@2012 ls mRiUu gksdj U;k;k/kh'k] fof'k"V U;k;ky;] vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ( vR;kpkj fuokj.k izdj.k ) ] dksVk esa fopkjk/khu gS rFkk f}rh; izFke lwpuk la[;k 45@2013 ftldk pkyku vfr0 eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV] dksVk ds U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k gS] dks U;k;k/kh'k] fof'k"B U;k;ky;] vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ( vR;kpkj fuokj.k izdj.k ) ] dksVk ds U;k;ky; esa vUrfjr dj nksuksa izdj.k dh lquokbZ ,d lkFk dh tkdj nksuksa izdj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k vkt ls nks ekg dh vof/k esa fd;k tkosA 2- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks ;g Hkh funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn muds le{k Hkkjrh; lk{; v/khuLFk dh /kkjk 63 o 65 ds rgr fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ Qzs'k vkosnu i= nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr~ izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k djrs le; muds }kjk iwoZ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-10-2013 ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk fd;k tkos rFkk u;k vkns'k ikfjr djus dh fLFkfr esa mDr vkns'k fnukad 24-10-2013 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr nkf.Md fofo/k ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k tkrk gSA ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXu LFkxu izkFkZuki= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA " 5. He has further contended that ms court cannot amend or review or recall the order dated 27.1.2014 passed by this court in view of the provisions of Section 363 Cr.RC. and In the light of the judgment dated 19.2.2014 delivered by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 31/2012 In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 723/2003 (The bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) and other connected matters; as also In the light of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors. reported In (2001), 1 SCC 169 . Learned PP has also opposed the same. 6. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) and other connected matters; as also In the light of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors. reported In (2001), 1 SCC 169 . Learned PP has also opposed the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record Including the Impugned order. 7. It is true that this Court cannot alter, amend or review the Judgment passed by this Court under Section 362 Cr.RC. unless and until there is an arithmetical or clerical error In the same. For ready reference, Section 362 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: 362. Court not to after JUDGEMENT - save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being In force, no Court, when It has signed Its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error." 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the definition of Section 362 Cr.RC. and the order dated 19.2.2004 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 317/2012 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 723/2003 and other connected matters; and the order dated 27.1.2014 passed by this Court In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 4212/2013 under Section 482 Cr.RC, on the basis of consent given by the advocates of the respective parties, as Indicated above, I do not think it proper to modify or amend the order dated 27.1.2014 passed by this Court and hence, the application filed by the petitioner, being without any substance, deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.Petition dismissed. *******