Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Nimba Ram vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp … on 15 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
[2025:RJ-JP:1972]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3661/2017
Nimba Ram S/o Sh. Narayan Ram, age about 45 years R/o
Ganpati Nagar, Hathikheda Road, Kotra, Ajmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondents
2. Taradevi Sahu wife of late Shri Sohan Lal Sahu;
3. Bhoopendra Sahu S/o late Shri Sohan Lal Sahu;
4. Mahendra Sahu S/o late Shri Sohan Lal Sahu; No.2 to 4 R/o
Near Bairwa Basti, Kotra, Pushkar Road, Ajmer.
------ Accused-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
15/01/2025
1. Instant petition has been preferred against the impugned
order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Additional District and Session
Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Ajmer by which the revision
petitions submitted by the petitioner as well the accused-
respondents against the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer, have been
rejected.
2. After hearing the arguments on the protest petition
submitted against the final report, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ajmer, passed the order dated 07.02.2014, taking
cognizance against the accused-respondents under Sections 341,
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:53:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:1972] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3661/2017]
3. On perusal of record, it transpires that the petitioner filed a
criminal complaint against the accused persons under Sections
341, 342, 380, 342, 448, 506 and 120B of IPC and under Section
3(5) of the SC/ST Act. The matter was sent for investigation under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Police. After investigation, the police
submitted final report negative, against which a protest petition
was filed by the petitioner wherein statements of the complainant-
petitioner as well as the other witnesses were recorded under
Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, cognizance was taken
for offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 of IPC vide order dated
07.02.2014, against which both the sides preferred revision
petitions and the same were dismissed by the common order
dated 27.10.2016.
4. The instant petition has been preferred by the complainant-
petitioner for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents
for rest of the offences i.e. 380, 342, 448 and 120B IPC and under
Section 3(5) of the SC/ST Act.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that on the basis of the
evidence available on record, cognizance was taken against the
accused-respondents under Sections 341, 323, 506 of IPC after
finding of a prima facie case against the accused-respondents for
proceeding against them for the above stated offences. At the
stage of cognizance, prima facie it is required to be seen that the
ingredients of the said offences were found to be present or not
for proceeding against the accused-respondents. Hence, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, neither the Trial Court nor
the Revisional Court have committed an error which requires any
interference of this Court.
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:53:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:1972] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3661/2017]
6. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move
appropriate application under Section 216 Cr.P.C for alteration of
charge, in case, any evidence is found against the accused-
respondents for proceeding against them for rest of the offences
for which cognizance was not taken. Stay application and all
pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
NEERU/61
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:53:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)