Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46693 (RAJ)

MUKUD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR

CRLMP/934/2014 · 2025-11-13

Anand Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:45566] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 934/2014 Mukund S/o Shri Narain, aged about 62 years, resident of Sawai Getore, Tehsil Sanganer district jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan 2. S.H.O. Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 13/11/2025 1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier one S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.303/2013 was filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and :- (i) The FIR bearing No.55/2013 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 427/384 IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside and the S.H.O., Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) may kindly be directed to register the case against the culprits and the non- petitioner No.2 and the other culprits who have committed offence against the petitioners immediately. (ii) Any other suitable order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners." 2. The said petition was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.05.2013 with the directions that [2025:RJ-JP:45566] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-934/2014] the Investigating Officer shall examine the version Annexure P-4 filed by the petitioners and formulate his opinion, thereupon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since, the said directions were not complied with by the Investigating Authority in its letter and spirit, therefore, the instant petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "i. The non-petitioner No.2 may kindly be directed to register a cross case against Vinod Kumar and others and to investigate into the matter by independent agency and the non-petitioner may kindly be further directed not to take any action and not to arrest the petitioner and other family members in FIR No.55/2013 registered at Police Station, Jawahar Circle (East), Jaipur. ii. Any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the prayer made in the present petition cannot be granted as alternative procedure for registration of a cross case is already there in the Cr.P.C., which has not been adopted by the petitioner and so far as the prayer with regard to not arresting the petitioner pursuant to FIR No.55/2013 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur (East) is concerned, petitioner was at liberty to move appropriate anticipatory bail application under the code. 5. However, learned Public Prosecutor added that after full-fledged trial, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 05.10.2019. 6. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the instant petition and the same is dismissed as not pressed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /5