Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2495 (RAJ)

Rajendra Singh Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan

2008-11-12

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.2.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Camp Srimadhopur in Criminal Revision No. 32/2003 whereby the learned Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dated 5.4.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur and took cognizance under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (Rajendra Singh Chauhan) is in Government service and he was working as Junior Engineer in Agriculture Marketing Board, Srimadhopur and the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Mahant is son of the then Chairman of Municipal Board, Srimadhopur.On 2.11.2001, the road construction work in Town Srimadhopur was in progress and the petitioner, who was supervising the road construction work, was giving some instructions to the contractor as well as labourers and at that time the complainant Rajendra Prasad without any cause and justification using the abusive language took marpeet with the petitioner. Regarding the said incidence, the petitioner lodged a F.1.R. against the non-petitioner No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Mehant. 3. The non-petitioner No. 2, Rajendra Prasad Mehant to save himself in the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner also lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioner. 4. On the aforesaid report the police of Srimadhopur registered a case F.I.R. No. 266/2001 under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of I.P.C. and started investigation. 5. After investigation the police filed FR No. 125/2001 on 15.11.2001 in the Court of A.C.J.M. Srimadhopur. The learned trial Court issued notices to the complainant/non-petitioner No. 2, who filed a protest petition before the learned trial Court, but the learned trial Court after going through the facts of FR, facts of cross cases and overall circumstances of the case vide its order dated 5.4.2003 dismissed the protest petition and allowed the FR filed by the investigation agency. 6. Against the said order the non-petitioner No. 2, filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Sikar, Camp Srimadhopur. The learned revisional Court vide its order dated 21.2.2007 allowed the revision petition and directly ordered to take cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341 and 504 I.P.C. 7. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2007 of learned revisional Court, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 8. Mr. The learned revisional Court vide its order dated 21.2.2007 allowed the revision petition and directly ordered to take cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341 and 504 I.P.C. 7. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2007 of learned revisional Court, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 8. Mr. Anoop Agarwal for Mr. Ajai Gupta appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has rightly accepted the final report submitted by the police but the revisional Court without appreciating the evidence and other things which is available on record has quashed and set aside the order of the Magistrate. Learned counsel further contended that this is a bailable offence and the non-petitioner has lodged a F.I.R. against the petitioner only to save himself because the petitioner has also lodged a F.I.R. bearing No. 265/2001. Hence, the judgment of the revisional Court be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, Mr. Anoop Dhand appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 2 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mehant has draw the attention of this Court upon a judgment reported in (1997) 2 SCC 397 titled as Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada ; the relevant part of the judgment runs as under:- "C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 190, 173, 200 and 202 - At the stage of taking cognizance of offence the Court should consider only averments made in the complaint or charge-sheet - Court is not required to sift and appreciate evidence at that stage." 10. Mr. D.D. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor is also opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Anoop Agarwal. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I quashed and set aside the order dated 21.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Camp Srimadhopur in Criminal Revision No. 32/2003 but on the same time I issue a direction to re-hear the matter as afresh and decide the same within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the same.Hence, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******