Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 990 (RAJ)

Navneet Saraf v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-28

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision No.41/2018 titled as Navneet Saraf Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan (presently Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-I) in Criminal Case No.93/2011 titled as State Vs. Navneet Saraf framing the charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC has been upheld. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498- A IPC on 28.06.2011 and trial court had taken cognizance on the same date. After that, trial court heard arguments on framing of charge and framed charges of offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after investigation, offence under Section 406 IPC was not found proved against the petitioner. At that time, complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor had not submitted any application regarding taking cognizance under Section 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that punishment under Section 406 IPC is 3 years and present charges framed under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner is time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had filed the revision petition, the said petition was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide order dated 07.09.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that trial court as well as learned revisional court had committed error in dismissing the petition. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that trial court as well as learned revisional court had not committed any error in its order. They further submit that trial court has considered the statements recorded during investigation and framed the charges under Section 406 IPC. They further submit that present case is not time barred. So, the petition be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Om Wati (Smt) and Anr. Vs. State reported in (2001) 4 SCC 333 ; (2) State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan and Anr. They further submit that present case is not time barred. So, the petition be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Om Wati (Smt) and Anr. Vs. State reported in (2001) 4 SCC 333 ; (2) State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan and Anr. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 525 ; (3) Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. Surinder Kumar & Ors. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 530; (4) Vaneet Mahajain Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in JT 2017 (7) SC 69; (5) Sushil Ansal Vs. State through CBI on 11.09.2001; (6) A. Meenakshi Sundaram Vs. The Additional Superintendent of Police decided on 01.08.2014; (7) Charan Vs. State of UP in Criminal Revn. No.1052/1985 decided on 11.03.1999 and (8) Sh. Chandra Prakash & Ors. Vs. State & Anr. Decided on 15.04.1996. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. It is an admitted position that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC on 28.06.2011 and learned trial court had framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC on 21.02.2018 after a lapse of 7 years. Punishment under Section 406 IPC is 3 years. So, framing of charge under Section 406 IPC is time barred. Learned trial court had erred in framing the charge under Section 406 IPC. Learned revisional court had also committed mistake in dismissing the revision petition. So, in my considered view, trial court had committed error in framing the charge of offence under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner. So, the order of framing of charge under Section 406 IPC is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside. 7. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. 8. However, respondent-complainant is at liberty to file the petition under Section 216 Cr.P.C. before the court concerned at appropriate stage.