High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 01 RAJ CK 0139

Ramniwas vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 17 January 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous(Pet.) No. 4436, 4437, 4438, 4439, 4440, 4449, Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

37 paragraphs · 364 words
1.

All these petitions involve common question of fact and law and hence, they are decided by this common order.

2.

The petitioner has preferred these criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief :-

Cr.L.M.P. No.4436/2018

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and orders dated 29.10.2018 in cases no. 48/2015, 45/2015, 46/2015, 47/2015, 49/2015 and 26/2015 titled as (LAXMI DEVI VS RAMNIWAS) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and may kindly be pass a fresh order for run the sentences concurrently."

3.

The wife and son of the petitioner filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which the Court below has ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for interim maintenance. It is shocking and glaring fact that the petitioner could not pay the said amount even when he was a licensed driver. Be that as it may, the Court below issued following recovery warrants :-

S.No.

Case No.

Duration of Recovery periods

Amount of recovery

1

48/2015

25.1.2007 to 25.11.2007 (10 months)

20000/-

2

45/2015

25.11.2007 to 25.10.2008 (11 months)

22000/-

3

46/2015

1.6.2009 to 31.5.2010 (12 months)

24000/-

4

47/2015

27.9.2011 to 27.2.2013 (17 months)

59500/-

5

49/2015

28.2.2013 to 27.2.2014 (12 months)

42000/-

6

26/2015

27.2.2014 to 26.2.2015 (12 months)

42000/-

In light of these recovery warrants, the petitioner has been given 30 days imprisonment in each case.

4.

After arguing on merits for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner limits his argument to the fact that the sentence awarded to the petitioner who has already undergone sentence of more than 3 months imprisonment out of 6 months imprisonment awarded, may be reduced by one month.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, in the interest of justice and without interfering on merits, these misc. petitions are disposed of and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from six (6) months to five (5) months, in totality in all these cases.