NAVNEET SARAF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 7/9/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision No.41/2018 titled as Navneet Saraf Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dtd. 21/2/2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan (presently Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-I) in Criminal Case No.93/2011 titled as State Vs. Navneet Saraf framing the charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under Ss. 498-A and 406 IPC has been upheld.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 498- A IPC on 28/6/2011 and trial court had taken cognizance on the same date. After that, trial court heard arguments on framing of charge and framed charges of offence under Sec. 498-A and 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that after investigation, offence under Sec. 406 IPC was not found proved against the petitioner. At that time, complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor had not submitted any application regarding taking cognizance under Sec. 406 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that punishment under Sec. 406 IPC is

(3.) years and present charges framed under Sec. 406 IPC against the petitioner is time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner had filed the revision petition, the said petition was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide order dtd. 7/9/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that trial court as well as learned revisional court had committed error in dismissing the petition. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that trial court as well as learned revisional court had not committed any error in its order. They further submit that trial court has considered the statements recorded during investigation and framed the charges under Sec. 406 IPC. They further submit that present case is not time barred. So, the petition be dismissed.