Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 3016 (RAJ)

Sheetal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-11-17

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. On 27.08.2993, the complainant respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint under Section 156 (3), CrPC to the concerned Police Station, where-upon the police registered a case No 491/2003 and after completion of investigation submitted final report. The complainant respondent filed a protest petition. In support of her protest petition, the complainant examined herself and also got recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 202, CrPC. The trial Court, on consideration of the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202, CrPC took cognizance of the offence in respect of accusd Uttam Chand, Mohan Lal, Mst. Ramdei and kumari Babita, but it did not find any prima facie case as against the present petitioners, namely Sheetal and Deepak vide his order dated 02.01.2004. The complainant respondent, feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Magistrate, filed a revision petition and the revisional Court vide its order dated 24.08.2004 accepted the revision petition and reversed the order passed by the trial Court and directed it to take cognizance of the offence under Section 489-A IPC, in respect of the petitioners. Hence this petition under Section 482 CrPC. 3. The grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the learned revisional Court has no powers to directly direct the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 397, CrPC. The learned revisional Court could have directed the trial Court to hold an inquiry if he was of the opinion that the case requires such further inquiry. 4. I have considered the above argument and have perused the impugned order. It appears that while passing the impugned order, the revisional Court has not noticed the provisions of Sec. 398, Cr PC which deal with power to order inquiry. 4. I have considered the above argument and have perused the impugned order. It appears that while passing the impugned order, the revisional Court has not noticed the provisions of Sec. 398, Cr PC which deal with power to order inquiry. Section 398 of the code provides that on examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. 5. A perusal of the above provision makes it emphatically clear that the revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge) has no power to direct the trial Court to take cognziance of the offence. Even if the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the order of the Magistrate dismissing the protest petition was not proper, all that he was empowered to do was to send the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with the direction either to himself make a further inquiry into the matter of direct any of his subordinate Magistrates to make a further inquiry into the matter. Thus the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not empowered make an order directing the trial Court to take cognizance of certain offence. Reference may be made to a decision of this Court in Parmeshwar Lal vs. Silip Sharma, RLW 1997 (1) Raj 598, wherein this Court has held as under:- "In the case of Dr. S.M. Gupta & Ors. (Supra), this Court had observed that in exercising revisional powers the revisional court, particularly this Court under Section 398, may direct further enquiry into the matter instead of directing directly the Magisrate to take cognizance of any particular offence. Following with respect the view expressed in this case, I hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have directed the learned Additional Magistrate to take cognizance of certain offence against the petitioners. He should have directed further enquiry into the case if he was of the opinion that the case necessitated such further inquiry". 6. Following with respect the view expressed in this case, I hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have directed the learned Additional Magistrate to take cognizance of certain offence against the petitioners. He should have directed further enquiry into the case if he was of the opinion that the case necessitated such further inquiry". 6. In that view of the mater, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not correct in even observing that prima facie a case for taking cognizance of the offence is made out. It must, therefore, be held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional powers should not have directly directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. He should have directed further enquiry into the case if he was of the opinion that the case necessitated such further inquiry. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 24.08.2004 impugned in this petition is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court with the direction to make further inquiry into the mater and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.