Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 975 (RAJ)

Yuvraj Taneja v. State of Rajasthan

2009-04-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Tonk in Sessions Case No. 59/2008 whereby, while allowing application filed by the complainant Jahid under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance under Sections 143, 341, 323, 307, 302 I.P.C., the petitioner has been added as an additional accused and summoned by non-bailable warrants. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant-Jahid son of Pyare Miyan submitted a complaint with the Police Station, Sadar, Tonk on 2.8.2009 at 2.00 am upon which an F.I.R., bearing No. 91/2008 was lodged under Sections 143, 341, 323, 307, 302 I.P.C. in which it was stated that the complainant in the evening at about 7.00 pm was sitting in the vehicle near the Banas Bridge with Wahid and Anwar where Sandeep, Sunil, Rajesh and 2-3 other persons came on two motorcycles and asked the complainant to remove the Jeep from the site due to which there was a hot exchange between the parties and the accused persons snatched the Jeep and pushed the complainant and Wahid in Banas River. Consequently, Wahid died and the complainant was injured. The complainant knows Sandeep, Sunil and Rajesh because they are coming to the Court and he can identify rest of the accused if they are brought before him. On having due (sic: hue) and cry by Anwar, some people came for rescue and in the meanwhile, the accused persons ran away. 3. Upon the aforesaid report, the Police registered a case, started investigation and filed charge-sheet against Sandeep and 5 other persons before the Magistrate concerned who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Tonk. The Sessions Judge, Tonk transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Tonk for trial. The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 143, 341, 323 in the alternative 323/149, 307 in the alternative 307/149 and 302 in the alternative 302/149 I.P.C. against Sandeep and 5 others. 4. After recording the statement of PW-1 Jahid and PW-2 Anwar Khan, an application has been filed by the complainant Jahid on 29.1.2009 before the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner. 5. 4. After recording the statement of PW-1 Jahid and PW-2 Anwar Khan, an application has been filed by the complainant Jahid on 29.1.2009 before the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner. 5. The learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 143, 341, 323, 307 and 302 PC vide order dated 7.3.2009 on the application filed by the complainant Jahid and issued non-bailable warrants to the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 7.3.2009, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.L. Agarwal has contended that the trial Court has committed serious irregularities by taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence as indicated above. He has further contended that this power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. There is no evidence against the petitioner. He has further drawn attention of this Court towards the F.I.R. and has contended that the name of the petitioner is not there in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant. He has further drawn attention of this Court on the following judgments: (1) Brindaban Dass v. State of W.B., 2009 (1) Supreme 189 (Paras 19 and 20) (2) Municipal Corp. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rastogi, AIR 1983 SC 67 (Para 19) (3) Michgel Munchado & Ors. v. CBI, AIR 2000 SC 1127 (Para 12) (4) Krishnappa v. State of Kanataka, (2004) 7 SCC 792 (Para 9) (5) Guriya Tapasam Tauqurs v. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 95 (Para 16) (6) Kailash v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2008 SC 1565 (Paras 12 and 13) 8. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, Mr. Agarwal has prayed that the order dated 7.3.2009 be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Baisla, learned counsel for the complainant Jahid, has contended that the complainant Jahid had described the features of the petitioner in his F.I.R. and when he knew about the name of the petitioner. he informed to the Station House Officer immediately by writing a letter and he has further drawn attention of this Court on the statements of PW-1 Jahid and PW-2 Anwar Khan and the statements of these two witnesses confirmed the presence of the accused-petitioner at the time of commission of the offence. he informed to the Station House Officer immediately by writing a letter and he has further drawn attention of this Court on the statements of PW-1 Jahid and PW-2 Anwar Khan and the statements of these two witnesses confirmed the presence of the accused-petitioner at the time of commission of the offence. He has further drawn attention of the Court on the following judgments:- 1. 2006 RCC 1 page 341, Ram Nizvas v. State of Rajasthan 2. 2005 RCC 1 page 91, Amit v. State of Rajasthan 3. 2003 RCC page 1568, 4. 2001 (11) RCC page 1478 5. AIR 1983 SC page 67 10. For the reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 7.3:2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Tonk and the same is hereby confirmed. 11. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner is free to raise all these objections at the time of final arguments.Petition disposed of. *******