Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Omprakash Vs. the State of Rajasthan.

Omprakash vs The State of Rajasthan.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 18, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920445

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Case No. CRLR 011366 of 2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 397, 216

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Omprakash

Advocate Mr. Nagesh Soral, Adv

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan.

Advocate Ms. Rekha Madnani, Adv

Legal References

Acts
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 397, 216

Excerpt

1. heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under section 397 cr.p.c. challenging impugned order dated 07.07.2010, whereby his application under section 216 cr.p.c. for alteration of charge framed against him was dismissed. 3. learned trial court, while dismissing the application, has observed that a detailed order was passed on 20.07.2009, whereby charge was ordered to be framed. it is relevant to mention that order dated 20.07.2009, farming charge, was challenged by the petitioner before this court in s.b. criminal revision petition no. 1330/2009, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move an application under section 216 cr.p.c. in the trial court, therefore, the petitioner moved an application in the trial court under section section 216 cr.p.c., which has been dismissed vide impugned order. 4. learned trial court has referred the injury sustained by injured, i.e. on chest-left side, by knife, therefore, trial court was of the view that no ground is made out to alter the charge in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, so as to interfere with the same, therefore, i do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging impugned order dated 07.07.2010, whereby his application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge framed against him was dismissed.

3. Learned trial court, while dismissing the application, has observed that a detailed order was passed on 20.07.2009, whereby charge was ordered to be framed. It is relevant to mention that order dated 20.07.2009, farming charge, was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1330/2009, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. in the trial court, therefore, the petitioner moved an application in the trial court under Section Section 216 Cr.P.C., which has been dismissed vide impugned order.

4. Learned trial court has referred the injury sustained by injured, i.e. on chest-left side, by knife, therefore, trial court was of the view that no ground is made out to alter the charge in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, so as to interfere with the same, therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial