Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1007 (RAJ)

Sarvjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-06

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. Heard on application (CMCR No.54/2014) under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 2. It is mentioned in the application that the petitioner has sent a certified copy of the impugned order dated 10.04.2013 to his counsel at Jodhpur for filing the criminal revision petition in April, 2013 itself. However, the certified copy of the impugned order dated 10.04.2013 was lost by the advocate and, thereafter, another certified copy has been obtained and, thereafter, this criminal revision petition has been filed with the delay of 131 days. The application is supported by an affidavit filed by advocate Shri Daulat Singh Rathore. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing this criminal revision petition, however, the delay has been caused because the certified copy of the impugned order has been lost. It is contended that the delay caused in filing the criminal revision petition is due to some unavoidable circumstances and the same deserves to be condoned. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have not seriously opposed the application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision petition. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the contents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application (CMCR No.54/2014) is allowed. The delay in filing criminal revision petition is condoned. 6. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 7. By this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, Camp Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in Sessions Case No.36/2009 (State v. Sarvjeet Singh), whereby the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 450, 307, 326 and 324 IPC have been framed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 10.04.2013 has argued that as per the injury report, in all, the respondent No.2 has received seven injuries and none of them is dangerous to life, therefore, the court below has grossly erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 10.04.2013 has argued that as per the injury report, in all, the respondent No.2 has received seven injuries and none of them is dangerous to life, therefore, the court below has grossly erred in framing charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the criminal revision petition and argued that the court below has rightly framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the other offences, therefore, no interference is called for. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record. 11. The court below has passed the following order on 10.04.2013 :- ^^cgl pktZ lquh xbZ i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr nLrkost lk{; ds vk/kkj ij eqyfte loZthr ds f[kykQ /kkjk 450&,] 307&,] 326 o 324 Hkk0n0la0 ds vijk/k dk vkjksi izFke n`"V;k xfBr gksuk ik;k tkus ij mijksDrkuqlkj i`Fkd ls vkjksi fojfpr dj lquk;s rks tqxZ vLohdkj fd;k o vUoh{kk pkghA xokg 1 o 2 lEeu ls ryc gksdj okLrs lk{; fnukad 4-6-2013 dks is'k gksA** 12. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 10.04.2013, it is clear that the court below has not discussed about the injury report as well as x-ray report pertaining to the respondent No.2 while framing of charges for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. It is not clear that on what basis the court below has concluded to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 13. In view of the above fact situation, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, Camp Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.36/2009 (State v. Sarvjeet Singh) is hereby quashed. The Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, Camp Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar is directed to pass a fresh order of framing of charges against the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after taking into consideration the injury report as well as the x-ray report of respondent No.2. Stay petition stands disposed of. Revision allowed.