Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 764 (RAJ)

Gursev Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-06

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for Short "the code" hereinafter) is directed against the order dated 5.7.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, district Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 102/2003, whereby the Revisional Court set aside the order dated 17.7.2003 passed by the judicial Magistrate, Gharasana (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter), whereby the trial Court took congnizance of the offences under Sections 447, 427, 504, 147 IPC against non-petitioners No.2 to 10 and issued process. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the orders of the Revisional Court as well as of the trial Court. 3. Petitioner-complainant lodged an FIR No.537/2001 against non-petitioners No.2 to 10 for the offences noticed above. However, after investigation, the police filed negative final report. A notice was issued to the complainant-petitioner by the trial court. The complainant-petitioner filed a protest petition and in support of the protest petition, produced as many as four witnesses, viz. CW 1 Gurucharn Singh, CW 2 Darbara Singh, CW 3 Gursev Singh (the petitioner-complainant) and CW 4 Kor Singh. These witnesses were examined by the trial Court on oath. The trial Court, considering the statements of these witnesses produced by the complainant-petitioner in support of the case, took cognizance against the non- petitioners No. 2 to 10 for the aforesaid offences and issued process vide order dated 17.3.2003. That order came to be challenged by the accused-non-petitioners No.2 to 10 before the Revisional Court. 4. It is settled law that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate has only to decide whether sufficient ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well settled that notwithstanding the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if the material on record makes out a case for the said purpose. The investigation is the exclusive domain of the police. Taking cognizance of the offence is the area exclusively within the domain of Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. Taking cognizance of the offence is the area exclusively within the domain of Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the time of issuing process, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2004 Cri. L.J. 5008 (SC). 5. In State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan & Anr. 2005 R.Cr.D. 117 (SC). , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. 6. In the instant case, from the perusal of the statements of witnesses produced by the complainant-petitioner in support of his protest petition, viz, CW 1 Gurucharan Singh, CW 2 Darbara Singh, CW 3 Gursev Singh, the petitioner-complainant himself and CW 4 Kor Singh, prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused/non-petitioners for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 147 IPC. It is settled law that when a Revisional Court interferes with the order of the trial Court based on the evidence available on record before it then Revisional Court is required to appreciate the evidence and give cognate reasons for not agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. In the instant case, the Revisional Court, much less assigning reasons not agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, has assigned no reasons, inasmuch as the statements as many as four witnesses have been omitted to be considered. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned order of the Revisional Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 5.7.2005 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside and the order of the trial Court dated 17.7.2003 is restored.Revision Petition allowed. *******