Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39292 (RAJ)

DR MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

CRLMP/3292/2013 · 2025-10-07

Anand Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:40722] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3292/2013 Dr Manoj Kumar Tiwari S/o Sohan Lal Tiwari, R/o House No. 31,Ganesh Colony, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. Harish Chandra Sharma S/o Late Shri Shivsahai Sharma. 3. Smt. Kaushayla Devi W/o Harish Chandra Sharma. 4. Siddharth Sharma S/o Harish Chandra Sharma. 5. Babita Sharma W/o Dr. Manoj Tiwari, Daughter of Harish Chandra Sharma. 6. Mohal Lal Vyas S/o Late Shri Shivsahai Sharma. 7. Mrs. Mohal Lal Vyas W/o Mohanlal Vyas. 8. Preeti D/o Mohanlal Vyas. 9. Suman D/o Mohanlal Vyas. 10. Pintu S/o Mohanlal Vyas. 11. Mrs. Siddharth Sharma,W/o Siddharth Sharma, All R/o 2A and 3A- Chitragupt Nagar Second, Kartarpura Phatak, Jaipur. 12. K.L. Sharma S/o Namaloom, R/o F-442, Gandhi Nagar Club, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Mahesh Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/10/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the fact that the trial Court instead of taking cognizance for offences under Section 420, 406, 120B, 323, 504 and 511 IPC has taken cognizance only for offences under [2025:RJ-JP:40722] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3292/2013] Section 323, 504/120B IPC. The cognizance order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which has also been dismissed by the revision Court on 05.03.2013. 2. This Court has received the report from Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur Metro-2nd, which reveals that in the meanwhile, the trial was concluded by trial Court and the respondent-accused were convicted however, benefit of probation has been granted to them vide judgment dated 16.11.2019. 3. In view of the fact that trial itself has been concluded, no cause of action to pursue the instant misc. petition survives and the same is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/32