[2025:RJ-JP:19766] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 212/2020 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 595/2007 State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Petitioner Versus Shyam Sunder Mahadeva S/o Shri Chogga Lal Mahadeva, R/o 9/14 Ghandhi Nagar Aajad Nagar Pur Road, Bhilwara. Business Address Anupam Family Store Opp. Mahaveer Park, Pech Area, Bhilwara 311001. ----Respondent Petition for Leave to Appeal to Hon’ble Supreme Court by Anand Swaroop Vyas S/o Shri Murli Dhar ji Vyas, Age 73 years, real uncle of deceased Chetan, Profession Advocate, resident of 36 Kailash Puri, opposite Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 301018 Rajasthan Mobile No. 9414541227 Email:- anandvyas76@gmail.com For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Swaroop Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain Mr. B.L. Nasuna, Dy.GA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/03/2025 1. Instant misc. application is preferred by applicant Anand Swaroop Vyas for grant of leave to file special leave to appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court, aggrieved from judgment dated 17.08.2009 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 595/2007. 2. The petitioner in person while relying upon grounds of this application submitted that the criminal case was registered against Shyam Sunder Mahadeva (respondent accused) for harassment [2025:RJ-JP:19766] (2 of 5) [CRLMA-212/2020] and abetment of suicide to Chetan Vyas and after investigation police has filed a closure report but the trial Court on the basis of protest petition and further evidence under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance under Section 306 IPC. He further submitted that after the trial for charge under Section 306 IPC Shyam Sunder Mahadeva was acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge and aggrieved from the order the State of Rajasthan has filed a S.B. Criminal Appeal and same was dismissed on 17.08.2009. The petitioner further referred his interest and submitted that now the petitioner desires to file a special leave to appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court and for the purpose the current application is filed so as to enable the petitioner to file a SLP (Criminal) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge the order dated 17.08.2009 in criminal Appeal no. 595/2007, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing for non-applicant respondent and he submitted that due to some financial difficulty deceased Chetan has committed suicide and only on suspicion a police report was registered wherein police has filed a closure report (F.R.). He further submitted that the trial court on basis of ex-parte statement has taken cognizance and forwarded the respondent to face trial but learned Additional Sessions after full trial has acquitted the respondent. He further submitted that the State has preferred leave to appeal before Hon’ble this Court and after hearing both the parties, the appeal was dismissed. He also submits that the applicant was neither a complainant nor in deposition of victim or interested person, therefore, he has no locus to file any application before this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:19766] (3 of 5) [CRLMA-212/2020] He also submitted that applicant has no right to seek leave FROM this Hon’ble Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of some allegations against Shyam Sundar Mahadeva an inquest no. 2/1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at P.S. GRP Bhilwara on death of Chetan Vyas. After inquiry, FIR no. 31/1999 under Section 306 IPC was registered against respondent for abatement of suicide. After detailed investigation, police has found that no case is made out against Shyam Sundar Mahadeva and submitted final closure report (F.R.). The complainant has filed a protest petition and also examined eight witnesses in support of protest petition. Learned Magistrate on the basis of material and evidence has taken cognizance against Shyam Sundar Mahadeva under Section 306 IPC. After committal and transfer of case the respondent Shyam Sundar Mahadeva was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer in sessions case no. 8/2005 and after recording eight prosecution witnesses and four defence witnesses acquitted respondent Shyam Sundar Mahadeva from charge under Section 306 IPC. The State has preferred an appeal before this Court as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 595/2007, which was dismissed on 17.08.2009. 6. Afterwards instant application is filed on 03.07.2020 by Anand Swaroop Vyas (real uncle of deceased Chetan), with prayer to grant of leave to challenge acquittal order dated 17.08.2009. 7. The definition of victim is provided under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. and it means that a person who has suffered loss or injury [2025:RJ-JP:19766] (4 of 5) [CRLMA-212/2020] due to the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and expression “victim” includes his/her guardian or legal heir. 8. In the instant case, the report was registered by Kailash Chand Vyas who is father-in-law of deceased Chetan Vyas. After submission of protest petition eight witnesses PW-1 Kailash Chand Vyas, PW-2 Anita (wife of deceased), PW-3 Shiv Dhari Yadav, PW- 4 Niranjan PW-5 Smt. Sangeeta (sister-in-law of deceased), PW-6 Himmat Singh and PW-7 Vishnu Dutt Sharma, PW-8 Chandra Prakash were examined and all were produced and examined after framing charge under Section 306 IPC. 9. Herein this case, present applicant has neither taken any interest from year 1999 till 2020 nor he persuaded the case before the police or any Court of law. The applicant has no locus as legal heirs of deceased are liable which includes wife of deceased. After acquittal order by the trial court, none of legal representative of deceased including wife of deceased has taken any interest to pursue further remedy. The applicant has no locus to seek permission from this Court to file a SLP (Criminal), before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. Moreover, neither complainant nor any interested person in deceased has challenged the judgment dated 22.06.2006 in Sessions Case no. 8/2005 by filing either a revision petition or any other petition. The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal dated 22.06.2006, by filing an appeal but same was dismissed on 17.08.2009. After dismissal of appeal in year 2009, this application is filed in the year 2020. The application is not only delayed but the reasons assigned in application are not sufficient. [2025:RJ-JP:19766] (5 of 5) [CRLMA-212/2020] The applicant is an advocate and he is well-aware about that in case any action has to be initiated then same is required to be initiated promptly and without any delay. 11. I am well-aware that period of limitation cannot be attracted but a reasonableness has to be adopted while considering any application filed by any person, who has no direct nexus with the cause of action. 12. In view of aforesaid, the instant application is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed on merit as well. 13. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant criminal misc. application is hereby dismissed. 14. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /174