1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1024 OF 2003

BHANWAROO KHAN ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAZAK  KHAN @  RAJU &  

ORS.  .....

RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The  respondents  herein  were  summoned  by  the  

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deedwana (Rajasthan)  

by an order dated 31.05.2002 made on an application under  

Section  319  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure.   The  

application  was  a  sequel  to  the  statement  of  certain  

prosecution witnesses that had been recorded by the trial  

court.  By the impugned order, the application was allowed

2

and the four respondents were duly sent up for trial for an  

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 498-A  

of the Indian Penal Code.  Three of the aggrieved parties  

i.e. Razak Khan, Mena  and Umaid Khan, respondents herein,  

thereafter  moved  the  High  Court  by  way  of  a  Criminal  

Revision Petition.  The High Court, has, vide its judgment  

dated 15th January, 2003, set aside the judgment and order of  

the Additional District and Sessions Judge, dated  31st May,  

2002  and  quashed  the  proceedings  not  only  against  the  

private respondents before us but also qua Ayub Khan, the  

husband of the deceased who was not even a petitioner before  

the High Court.  The present appeal has been filed at the  

instance of Bhanwaroo Khan, the father of the victim.   

We have gone through the order of the High Court and  

find that after perusing the evidence and the statements of

3

P.W. 5 – Ibrahim Khan, P.W. 9 – Bhanwaroo Khan  and P.W. 10  

– Shahzadi Bano, a finding has been recorded that there was  

no evidence whatsoever against any of the three revision  

petitioners  before  the  High  Court.   We  have  also  gone  

through the statements ourselves and notice that except for  

vague allegations and those relatable to Section 498-A of  

the IPC, no specific charges have been levelled.

We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal qua respondent  

nos. 1 to 3.

As  already  mentioned  above,  the  husband  of  the  

deceased respondent No. 4 herein had not moved the High  

Court for seeking the quashing of the order under Section  

319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The High Court,  

nevertheless, quashed the proceedings against him as well.

4

In  the  light  of  the  fact  that  he  was  apparently  not  

aggrieved by the order, it was not proper for the High Court  

to have quashed the proceedings against him.

5

We,  accordingly,  dismiss  this  appeal  qua  the  

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and allow the same qua Ayub Khan,  

respondent No. 4.

The parties are directed to appear before the trial  

Court on 9th November, 2009.   

Interim order stands vacated.  

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 20, 2009.