[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

O R D E R

Sikandar Vs. State of Rajasthan

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1242 of 2016

DATE OF ORDER:

August 5, 2016

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor for

the State.

BY THE COURT :

Accused-petitioner has preferred this

misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail

impugned order dated 29^th of April 2016, passed by

Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali (for

short, ‘learned revisional Court’), whereby the

learned revisional Court, while dismissing the

revision petition, has affirmed order dated 17^th of

October, 2015, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short,

‘learned trial Court’).

[2]

Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to

this misc. petition are that complainant Mahendra

Singh submitted a written report to the SHO, Police

Station Jaitaran on 12^th of May 2015 stating therein

that on 26^th of March 2016 he received messages on

his cell-phone from mobile No.9829607418 which

were also sent to Devaram and Motilal having

mobile

Nos.

9783900753

and

8442090507

respectively. In the written report, the complainant

alleged that these messages have outraged the

religious feelings of a class and same tantamount to

insulting its religious beliefs. It is further stated

in the report that the sender of the messages had

intended to disturb religious harmony and

tranquility. The SHO concerned registered FIR

No.168/2015 for offences punishable under Section

295A, 504 and 509 IPC.

The

matter

is

investigated thoroughly and chargesheet against

petitioner for the aforesaid offences is submitted

before the learned trial Court. The learned trial

Court took cognizance of the offences against the

petitioner and thereafter vide its order dated 17^th of

October 2015 framed charges. Being aggrieved by

the framing of charges, the petitioner invoked the

[3]

revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

and the learned revisional Court by the order

impugned dated 29^th of April 2015 rejected revision

petition of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

vehemently argued that the messages which were

sent from the mobile phone cannot be construed as

offending so as to outrage religious feelings of the

complainant or disturbing his religious beliefs.

Learned counsel, therefore, urged that no offence

under Section 295A is made out and the learned

trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court

has not at all cared to examine this vital fact.

Learned counsel further submits that the order

impugned warrants interference by this Court in

exercise of its inherent powers to prevent abuse of

process of the Court. Learned counsel has also

submitted that from a bare reading of FIR and the

material collected during investigation, offences

under Section 504 and 509 are not made out, and

therefore, the order passed by the learned trial

Court as well as learned revisional Court is per se

vulnerable and therefore cannot be sustained.

[4]

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has

vehemently urged that the messages sent by

accused-petitioner are not only objectionable but

are also offending so as to constitute all the three

offences. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that

the learned trial Court has framed the charges after

considering the chargesheet and allied papers

threadbare and the said order has also been

examined by the learned revisional Court while

exercising its power of judicial review, therefore, in

that background the impugned order is not liable to

be interfered with in exercise of inherent powers of

this Court. Learned Publ