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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 2432

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
FARJAND ALI
SURENDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLR / 1123 / 2025



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5413]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1123/2025

Surendra Singh S/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 42 Years,

Resident Of Village Novi Ps Sumerpur District Pali Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Deepak Joshi S/o Shri Mana Lal Ji, Resident Of Village

Sewadi Tehsil Bali District Pali Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamboo Singh Rathore

Mr. Chain Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

30/01/2026

1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a

challenge is made to the order dated 31.05.2025 whereby the

learned trial Court ordered to frame charges against the petitioner

for commission of offence under Sections 341, 323 read with

323/34, 342 read with 342/34, 365 read with 365/34, 440 read

with 440/34, 307 read with 307/34 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial

Court has committed an error of law in ordering framing of

charges against the petitioner because the requisite material was

not available on record. It is his assertion that there was no fire-

arm injury on the body of the victim Sagar Mali and, therefore, it

can be presumed that fire-arm was not used and that is why the

learned trial Court discharged the petitioner from the charge

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:04:10 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:30:33 PM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:5413] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2025]

under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He further argued that since

there was no injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of

nature and the injury was not dangerous to life, therefore, no

offence under Section 307 of IPC would be attracted.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently made a

protest to the submissions made at the instance of the petitioner

and urged that for the purpose of invocation of Section 307 of IPC,

there is no need that the injury received by the victim must be

such as is likely to cause death and so also there is no

requirement of law that only if firearm injuries would be sustained,

the penal provision of Section 307 of IPC attract. He further urges

that the petitioner was discharged from Section 3/25 Arms Act for

the reason of there being no previous sanction of District

Magistrate concerned since as per Section 3 of the Arms Act, to

prosecute a person, a previous sanction is necessary and in this

case the SHO abstained from obtaining the requisite sanction,

therefore, the discharge order was passed and, therefore, the

petitioner cannot take advantage of it.

4. I have bestowed upon the submissions made at bar and the

material available on record.

5. The petitioner was discharged from the offence under

Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act solely on the ground of absence of

the requisite sanction. As per the statutory mandate, prosecution

under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act requires prior approval of the

District Magistrate. Admittedly, no such sanction had been

obtained by the investigating agency and, therefore, the learned

Trial Court had no option but to discharge the petitioner from the

said offence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:04:10 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:30:33 PM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:5413] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1123/2025]

cannot be permitted to derive any undue advantage from the said

discharge.

5.1 The victim, in his statement, has categorically alleged that

the petitioner attempted to kill him by deliberately ramming his

vehicle with a Bolero car. It has further been alleged that after the

collision, the victim was assaulted, as a consequence of which he

sustained injuries.

5.2 The site memo placed on record, along with the photographs

of the vehicle in which the victim was travelling and the

photographs of the other vehicle, clearly depict a collision between

the two vehicles. The site memo further prima facie corroborates

the version of the victim regarding the incident of vehicular

collision. The allegations of causing in

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 Back to top