Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 13, 1988

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/772795

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/772795
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Dinker Lal Mehta, J.
Decided On: Apr 13, 1988
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 8 of 1988
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Sections 397 & 401--Interlocutory order and intermediatory order--Distinction between--Order relating to framing of charge set aside and proceeding came to an end--Held, it is intermediatory order and not interlocutory order.;Even the Court must draw the distinction between the interlocutory order a...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1988(1)WLN712

Excerpt

penal code - sections 397 & 401--interlocutory order and intermediatory order--distinction between--order relating to framing of charge set aside and proceeding came to an end--held, it is intermediatory order and not interlocutory order.;even the court must draw the distinction between the interlocutory order and intermediatory order. if the other view is taken and the proceedings against the petitioner come to an end it cannot be interlocutory because it will result in the end of the prosecution. in interlocutory order even if set aside, and the proceedings continues. where the order relating to the framing of the charge is set-aside, proceedings come to an end and as such i am of the view that it cannot be said to be an interlocutory order. it may be an intermediatory order.;petition accepted. - .....by the petitioner. it is an admitted position that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the fir and he was not present on the spot. there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has participated in the commission of crime. in any way, giving of the forewarning to the deceased that some people are sitting nearby 'gadh' and he is likely to he killed is indicative of the fact that the object of the petitioner was not to commit murder or to cause any injury to the deceased.3. after dictation of this order mr. a.k. gupta, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that there is a d b. judgment of this court in which this court has held that no application under sections 397 and 401, lies the judgment has not been produced before me. even the court must draw the distinction between the interlocutory order and intermediatory order. if the other view is taken and the proceedings against the petitioner come to an end it cannot be interlocutory because it will result in the end of the prosecution. in interlocutory order, even if set-aside, and the proceedings continues. where the order relating to the framing of the charge i set-aside, proceedings come to an end and as such i am of the view that it cannot be said to be an interlocutory order. it may be an intermediatory order. even if it is assumed that there is any judgment, even then this court can pass an order under section 482, cr. pc where the revision petition does not lie. to prosecute a person only on a loss of property when there is no evidence against him, it may result in conviction which should not to be allowed to stand.4. in the result, the petition is accepted and the order passed by the learned additional sessions judge, dated 14-12-1987, relating to the framing of the charge against the petitioner is set-aside. the petitioner is discharged.

Full Judgment

D.L. Mehta, J.

1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14-12-1987, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby he directed that the charge he framed under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.

2. The allegations against the present petitioner is that be forewarned the deceased while he was going that some people are sitting near the 'Garh' and there is likely-hood that he may be murdered. The words used are as under-'AAJ TERI KHER NAI HAI, GADH KE PAAS AADMI BAITHE HAI' There is a reference in the dying declaration about the warning given by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR and he was not present on the spot. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has participated in the commission of crime. In any way, giving of the forewarning to the deceased that some people are sitting nearby 'Gadh' and he is likely to he killed is indicative of the fact that the object of the petitioner was not to commit murder or to cause any injury to the deceased.

3. After dictation of this order Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the complainant, submits that there is a D B. judgment of this Court in which this Court has held that no application under Sections 397 and 401, lies the judgment has not been produced before me. Even the Court must draw the distinction between the interlocutory order and intermediatory order. If the other view is taken and the proceedings against the petitioner come to an end it cannot be interlocutory because it will result in the end of the prosecution. In interlocutory order, even if set-aside, and the proceedings continues. Where the order relating to the framing of the charge i set-aside, proceedings come to an end and as such I am of the view that it cannot be said to be an interlocutory order. It may be an intermediatory order. Even if it is assumed that there is any judgment, even then this Court can pass an order under Section 482, Cr. PC where the revision petition does not lie. To prosecute a person only on a loss of property when there is no evidence against him, it may result in conviction which should not to be allowed to stand.

4. In the result, the petition is accepted and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 14-12-1987, relating to the framing of the charge against the petitioner is set-aside. The petitioner is discharged.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1988 Same Parties Ashok Kumar vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Dinker Lal Mehta, J.

Criminal