Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184 - 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196] Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184 Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185 Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186 Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar 2022 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184 - 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196]
Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
X v. Y 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. .v. Sharda 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
Manisha Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
Bhavin Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
Bheru Lal v. State Of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
Chitrank Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Judgments/ Orders of the Week
Case Title: Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan with other connected matter
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 184
The Rajasthan High Court denied bail to two accused, including the girl's brother, in a case 'having a strong trait of honour killing'.
Essentially, the deceased-Azad and the accused petitioner-Bhim Saini's sister were in a relationship. As the girl's family was not pleased with the same, therefore, the couple eloped. They were later apprehended by the police and the girl was made to accompany the petitioner-side. The deceased filed a habeas corpus petition following which, the parties attempted to settle the matter through compromise and accordingly, the deceased withdrew the petition. In a close proximity of time, the boy went missing and after four days his dead body was found lying in a pond tied with the heavy iron material.
Justice Farjand Ali, while dismissing the bail application of the two accused, observed, "Needless, to observe that every citizen of this country is abided and governed by rule of Law and one has to follow it as no one is above the Law, as in fact no one can. Every citizen is principally embodied to access their fundamental right and legal right peacefully and if it is being hindered by any one, the rule of law and the procedure established by law is there for its recourse, but no citizen is allowed to take the course of law in its own hands, strictly not."
Case Title: Raju @ Rajkumar Through His Brother Sh. Sharwarmal v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 185
The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to release a convict, belonging to Below Poverty Line (B.P.L.) family, on parole of 7 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and one sound and solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the court waived the requirement of the petitioner's brother furnishing surety bond.
Essentially, the petitioner was granted parole of 7 days under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 on 29.09.2021 with the requirement of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (out of which one was to be of the petitioner's brother Sharwarmal).
The petitioner had moved the High Court with an assertion that he may be released on furnishing personal bond only as he is a poor man belonging to the B.P.L. family.
Case Title: Sarvjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 186
While hearing a matter pertaining to maintenance, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the husband, who is a welder, is almost like a skilled workman, and thus, it cannot be presumed that he is not earning sufficiently to maintain the petitioner-wife. The court also opined that even if the petitioner-wife is stitching clothes domestically and has some income source, then also the husband is liable to pay maintenance to the wife along with her two children.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while allowing the criminal revision petition, observed, "This Court, after hearing the submissions and analyzing the record of the case, is of the firm opinion that even if the petitioner-wife is stitching clothes domestically then also she is entitled to get the maintenance. The respondent No.2-husband is a welder, which is almost like a skilled workman, and thus, it cannot be presumed that he is not earning sufficiently to maintain the petitioner-wife, even if the petitioner-wife has some income source, then also there are three family members whom the respondent No.2-husband is liable to maintain. In the given circumstances, it is a fit case for grant of maintenance to the petitioner-wife."
Case Title: Richa Dharu v. Hemant Panwar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 187
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a lady suffering from cruelty on account of her husband's conduct cannot be said to have deserted him or to be voluntarily residing away. The court added that the circumstances created by the husband, if not conducive, are bound to push away the wife.
Essentially, the case of the petitioner-wife is that respondent-husband is working on the post of Branch Manager in Bank of Baroda and is earning income of Rs.90,000/- per month. She submitted that the trial court has denied the monthly maintenance to her only on the ground that the divorce has been allowed between the parties. As per her, the divorce was ex-parte claimed by the respondent.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that in the present times, when the education itself is very costly and the daily life requires a respectable amount, the denial of maintenance to the wife and the daughter cannot be justified. The petitioner was thus directed to pay Rs. 15,000 per month maintenance to them.
The Petitioner had filed the present criminal review petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against the Family Court's order against an order which allowed the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
Case Title: Smt Kamla v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 189
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the condition imposed by the Income Tax Act that a person residing in India for a continuous period of 180 days would be considered to be a resident of India, is for the purpose of bringing such person within the purview of the Income Tax Act. The court added that the definition is simply designed for the purpose of including the persons who are in India for a period of 180 days to bring in the tax net and not for the purpose of determining the citizenship or for deciding the permanent resident status of such person.
Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani, while dismissing an appeal, observed, "We are prima facie of the view that there is no reason to accept the assertion of the appellant that the respondent was not a resident of India by applying the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 because, both the acts have a different object and purposes. The condition imposed by the Income Tax Act that a person residing in India for a continuous period of 180 days would be considered to be a resident of India, is for the purpose of bringing such person in the purview of the Income Tax Act. The definition is simply designed for the purpose of including the persons who are in India for a period of 180 days to bring in the tax net and not for the purpose of determining the citizenship or for deciding the permanent resident status of such person."
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. .v. Sharda
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that remarrying of the deceased's wife does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court added that the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court looking at the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable.
Justice Rameshwar Vyas, while dismissing the first appeal preferred by the Insurance Company observed, "Contention with regard to remarrying of the deceased's wife is concerned, the same does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial court looking to the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable. There is no merit in this appeal."
Case Title: Manisha Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 191
The Rajasthan High Court has directed a woman, who was married off while a minor and now wishes to part her ways, to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural) for appropriate security.
Notably, the woman has approached the court with the grievance that her parents are pressuring her to live with the person with whom her marriage was solemnised while she was a child. She argued that such marriage was illegal, as she was not of marriageable age at the relevant time. Moreover, the woman informed the court that though she wants to pursue her studies, her family members would get her arrested or forcefully take her to her village and restrict her movement due to which she would be unable to complete her studies.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed, "Having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that her parents and family members will intrude in her life and liberty, instant petition is being disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural) for appropriate security so as to enable her to take up her examinations at Jaipur which are going to be scheduled from 11.06.2022 to 06.07.2022."
Case Title: Bhavin Tanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 192
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the courts should not rush to issue standing warrants and initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants in order to avoid the prosecution.
Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 82 deals with the proclamation for person absconding, while section 83 talks about attachment of property of person absconding.
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while allowing the petition and setting aside the trial court's order, observed, "In the opinion of this Court, endeavor of a Court should be to ensure proper compliance of the statutory provisions and service of the summons as mandated by law. Service of summons is a bed-rock of principles of natural justice. The Courts should not rush to issue standing warrant and initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants in order to avoid the prosecution."
Case Title: Bheru Lal v. State Of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 193
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that pendency or not pendency of a revision petition is not a ground for a party to avert cross-examination before the trial court.
The clarification was made by Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati in the plea moved by one Bheru Lal in connection with a case under Income Tax Act, stating that his right to cross examination was closed. He sought one more opportunity for cross-examination on cost.
The respondent's counsel vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to make the necessary cross-examination but he has failed to do and has been making excuses before the trial court regarding the pendency of the revision petition and thus the delaying in whole proceeding.
However, the court, in the interest of justice, granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to complete the necessary cross-examination on the next date already fixed by the trial court.
Case Title: Chitrank Sharma v. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 194
The Rajasthan High Court has granted protection to a lawyer and his family members, whose house was pelted with stones, allegedly at the instructions of person confined in jail.
The court has directed the police authorities to extend necessary protection by deploying police personnel at petitioner-lawyer's house and also instruct PCR to have regular visits so that petitioner and his family members may be protected.
Essentially, the case of the petitioner-lawyer is that on the midnight of 14.06.2022, a few persons came in white Renault Tribber Car and threw stones at his house, due to which glass of his car and window at first floor of his house were damaged. The incident was recorded in a CCTV Camera installed at the house of the petitioner-lawyer. Further, the petitioner received a threat call on his Mobile from a person named Mridul. The person claimed himself to be confined in Barrack No.6 of jail and gave a threat of killing the petitioner and disclosed that the incident in the night of 14.06.2022 was committed on his instructions.
Case Title: Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out by the party. In this regard, the court pursued Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 which talks about variation, suspension and revocation of licences.
The present petitioner had raised grievance regarding the arms license.
The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days and asked the respective District Magistrate to consider the representation afresh by passing speaking orders, while keeping in mind the existing policy of the State.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, observed, "This Court is of the opinion that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application/ refusal/ renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out. Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would be suffice if their rights are redetermined by the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered in Khem Singh (supra), the same is accepted."
Case Title: Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Case No.: CRLMP/ 4448/ 2022
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a rape survivor to medically terminate 18 weeks pregnancy, stating that the anguish caused by an unwarranted pregnancy arising out of rape may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the victim.
Notably, the petitioner-victim had also lodged an FIR at Police Station Kaman, Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 376D of the Indian Penal Code. The present petition was filed seeking directions to terminate her unwarranted pregnancy as she no longer intends to continue with the same.
On 31.05.2022, a coordinate bench of the court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur to ensure that the victim girl be medically examined by the Medical Board comprising of expert doctors of the field to opine about the status of the pregnancy of the petitioner as well as whether termination of pregnancy of the petitioner is feasible or not.
A vacation bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal, while allowing the petition, observed, "The Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bharatpur is directed to constitute a team of Gynaecologist, who after obtaining the consent of the victim in writing and looking to the advanced stage and the physician health of the victim girl, to get the pregnancy terminated at the earliest, if medically possible."
Other Important Updates
1. Centre Notifies Appointment of Justice SS Shinde As Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court
The Central Government has notified the appointment of Justice Shinde Shambhaji Shivaji as the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. He is presently serving as the Judge of Bombay High Court.
He has less than two months of tenure left as a High Court judge.
Justice Shinde was recently recommended by the Supreme Court collegium for elevation as a Chief Justice.
Justice Shinde has presided over various high-profile cases in the recent past including the abetment to suicide case against Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami, Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case, cases against former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and actress Kangana Ranaut.