SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Raj) 1022

R.S.CHAUHAN
Abdul Kalam Musalman – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
Rajendra Kumar Sharma, for Petitioners;
Javed Chaudhary, P.P., for State

Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track, Tonk, whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the petitioners for offences under Sections 304, 120B IPC and under Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957/1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “M.M.D.R., Act”), the petitioners have approached this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.08.2010, a FIR, FIR No.144/2010, was registered at Police Station Dooni, District Tonk for offences under Section 304 IPC, read with Section 4/21 of M.M.D.R. Act against the accused petitioners. After registration the of FIR, the investigation commenced. After investigation and after arresting the accused persons, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned C.J. (J.D.) & J.M. Deoli, District Tonk under Section 304 Part-I, 120 IPC and 4/21 of M.M.D.R. Act. Thereafter , the matter was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Tonk. Vide order dated 26.11.2010, the learned Judge framed the charges, as aforementioned, against the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. The learned counsel has vehemently















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top