'Unnecessary Harassment': Rajasthan High Court On Trial Court's Failure To Decide Withdrawal Application Of Bailable Offence

The Rajasthan High Court expressed its displeasure over the trial court's explanation for not allowing the prayer of the petitioner-wife to withdraw the complaint against her husband Rajendra Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC.The court ordered that a copy of explanation of the trial court, which was contrary to the situation borne out from the material on record, be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration on the administrative side.On 4 July 2022, the High Court had asked the trial court to explain the reason for not allowing the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw the complaint.. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal case as the prayer for withdrawal of complaint of bailable offence was not considered rather kept pending by the trial court.Justice Birendra Kumar, while allowing the petition and quashing the criminal case, observed,"The explanation of the court below does not deserve acceptance because the explanation is against the material on the record. Moreover there was no reason to send the record to Lok Adalat when both the parties were not present before the court because Lok Adalat could not have done anything without consent of the parties. The inaction of the court below has led to unnecessary harassment to the petitioner to approach this court ventilating the same grievance. If the Public Prosecutor was prosecuting the matter, it was itself alien to the scheme of Cr.P.C" After perusing the trial court's explanation, the court opined that the record was pending for the appearance of the accused after cognizance. The trial court had reported that the application for withdrawal dated 12.03.2022 was filed by the petitioner before the bench of Lok Adalat and the bench called for the judicial record. In this regard, the High Court noted that the aforesaid report of the trial court is contrary to the petition of the petitioner which was filed on oath on 12.03.2022 before the trial court itself.Moreover, the trial court had further explained that on the next date fixed in the case, petitioner was not present, in the circumstance petition for withdrawal of complaint case remained pending.Adv. Dikshant Jain appeared for the petitioner while PP Imran Khan appeared for the respondent.Case Title: Smt. Rashmi Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 210Click here to read/ download Order

'Unnecessary Harassment': Rajasthan High Court On Trial Court's Failure To Decide Withdrawal Application Of Bailable Offence

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags