Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 669 (RAJ)

Sarjodhan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2004-04-26

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482. Cr. P.C. has been filed by one of the accused-persons Sarjodhan Singh against the judgment dated 10.4.2003, by which the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangaria dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner and upheld the order dated 12.6.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria, by which cognizance for the offences under sections 468, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused-petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 2. It arises in the following circumstances: (1) The respondent No. 2 Tarsem filed a complaint in the year 1998 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria and that complaint was sent under section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. for investigation to the S.H.O. Police Station. Sangaria, district Sri Ganganagar and on that complaint, the police registered a case vide FIR No. 589/1998 for offences tinder sections 420, 467, 469, 471 and 120-B, IPC. The police after investigation submitted the final report in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria. (2) Thereafter, the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition against the final report submitted by the police and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria treated that protest petition as complaint and proceeded to hold an enquiry as contemplated under sections 200 and 202. Cr. P.C. and during that inquiry, he recorded some statements including the statement of the present accused-petitioner. 3. The learned Magistrate after holding an enquiry through order dated 10.4.2001 came to the conclusion that prima facie a case for taking cognizance for the offences under sections 420, 465. 469 and 471, Indian Penal Code was found only against one accused Dr. Ramesh Kumar and not against the other accused-persons. 4. Thereafter, aggrieved from the order dated 10.4.2001, complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria and the learned Additional Sessions Judge through the judgment dated 27.4.2001 (not produced), allowed the revision petition and remit back the case to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria to proceed further according to law. 5. 4. Thereafter, aggrieved from the order dated 10.4.2001, complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria and the learned Additional Sessions Judge through the judgment dated 27.4.2001 (not produced), allowed the revision petition and remit back the case to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria to proceed further according to law. 5. Thereafter, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria by impugned order dated 12.6.2001 after discussing the case, came to the conclusion that prima facie case for taking cognizance for the offences under sections 468, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code was found established against accused Vijay Singh as well as the against the present accused-petitioner, who is by profession an Advocate. 6. Aggrieved from the order dated 12.6.2001, the present accused-petitioner filed a petition bearing No. 9/2002 (old 48/2001) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria vide judgment dated 10.4.2003 dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner through elaborate judgment and upheld the order dated 12.6.200 1, by which cognizance for the offences under sections 468. 471 and 120-B. Indian Penal Code was taken against the accused-petitioner and further directed that the accused-petitioner should remain present himself on 29.4.2003 before the Lower Court. otherwise, a non-bailable warrant would be issued against him. 7. Aggrieved from that judgment dated 10.4.2003, this criminal petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner. It may be stated here that vide order dated 3.7.2003, the operation of the impugned order dated 10.4.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria was stayed by this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner is that the impugned order dated 12.6.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Sangaria as well as the revisional judgment dated 10.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria are both against the well principles of law as the present petitioner was examined by the complainant to support his case under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, treating him subsequently, as an accused in the same case, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this Court should interfere in this matter. 9. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. 10. Therefore, this Court should interfere in this matter. 9. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. 10. In my considered opinion, looking to the fact that the police submitted the FR in this case and thereafter, the Magistrate treated the protest petition as complaint and in that complaint, accused-petitioner was examined as one of the witnesses of the complainant-respondent No. 2. Therefore, in view of the facts, taking of the cognizance against the present accused-petitioner, who was a witness for the complainant, cannot be sustained as it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this criminal miscellaneous petition filed under section 482. Criminal Procedure Code is allowed. The impugned orders dated 10.4,2003 as well as the order dated 12.6.2001 qua the accused-petitioner are quashed and set aside. *******