Rajasthan High Court
CRLMP/1960/2017 of DUNGARMAL and ANR Vs STATE and ANR on 21 December 2017
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1960 / 2017 1. Dungarmal Son of Shri Ramaram, By Caste Soni, Resident of Chittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore. 2. Ganpatlal Son of Shri Dungarmal, By Caste Soni, Resident of Chittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1960 / 2017
1. Dungarmal Son of Shri Ramaram, By Caste Soni, Resident ofChittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore. Chittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore.
2. Ganpatlal Son of Shri Dungarmal, By Caste Soni, Resident ofChittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Public Prosecutor.
2. Santosh Wife of Shri Ganpatlal Daughter of Shri Mool Chand, ByCaste Soni, Resident of Chittrodi, Tehsil-Raniwada, District-Jalore.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
Date of Judgment: 21/12/2017
The instant misc. petition is a glaring example of how thefacility of Free Legal Aid Scheme is being misused.
Shri R.S. Bhati, a lawyer on the penal of the Rajasthan StateLegal Services Authority was appointed to provide legal aid to thepetitioner under the Free Legal Aid Scheme by order dated25.01.2017. He has filed this misc. petition under Section 482Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated16.08.2011 passed by the learned ACJM, Bhinmal, District Jalorewhereby, charges were framed against them for the offencesunder Sections 498A, 323 and 406 IPC.
As this Court noticed that the petition was totally frivolous, comments were asked from the Secretary, Rajasthan High CourtLegal Services Authority who has furnished the same for courtsperusal. On going through the comments, it is apparent that theRetainer Advocate gave an opinion that the petitioner’s case wasfit for filing a writ petition. This Court is of the view that the saidopinion was absolutely casual and lackadaisical because a writpetition could not have been filed against an order framing chargeby the criminal court. The report also mentions that the Chairman,Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur twice opined that the petitioner’scase was not fit for providing free legal aid but thereafter, theExecutive Chairman, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authoritysanctioned grant of legal aid to the petitioner. The discretion togrant legal aid or not to a particular litigant vests exclusively withthe Legal Services Authority but, when legal opinion is soughtregarding filing of a particular proceeding in the High Court, it isexpected that the same should be offered with a thorough scrutinyof the facts available on record so as to prevent filing of suchfrivolous petitions. Under the sanction granted by the LegalServices Authority, the learned Panel Lawyer has filed this petitionunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 11.08.2017 against an order framingcharge passed by the court of the learned ACJM, Bhinmal, DistrictJalore way back on 16.08.2011. Manifestly, the said order ischallengeable in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397Cr.P.C. before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 90days from the date of passing of the order. The petitioners did notchallenge the impugned order framing charge passed by theACJM, Bhinmal by filing a revision before the Sessions Court, Jalore. A report has been received from the trial court as perwhich, four prosecution witnesses have already been examined atthe trial. Thus apparently, the learned Panel Lawyer has casuallyfiled this instant misc. petition without taking precaution to ensurethat a frivolous matter is not presented before this Court and alsothat the petitioner have misused the forum of Legal ServicesAuthority by procuring the facility of free legal aid without anyjustification.
In view of the fact that the order under challenge is revisableand as trial has proceeded, apparently, the instant petition is notmaintainable and is dismissed as such.
A copy of this order be placed before the Hon’ble ExecutiveChairman, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority .
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
tikam daiya/