Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 656 (RAJ)

Chandi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandal, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.392/2011. 2. The issue involved in the matter is that the FIR was registered at P.S. Mandal on the basis of Parcha Bayan of deceased Rampal (son of petitioner). Based on the said parcha bayan, the police investigated the matter and thereafter filed charge-sheet against Mohan and Ghanshyam on 26.11.2011. On the very same day, the petitioner, who is mother of Rampal, filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate instead of passing any order on merits, committed the case to the Sessions Judge on 14.12.2011 and also sent the application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Judge. It is against this order that the petitioner/complainant has approached this Court praying for a direction that the learned Magistrate was duty bound to decide the application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the parcha bayan of the deceased, specific allegation was made regarding participation of the respondents no.2 to 6. He thus submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have decided the application and should have directed summoning of the respondents no.2 to 6 to stand trial. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 6 submits that now the learned trial court has framed the charges after committal of the case and now the petitioner can very well apply to the learned trial court for summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after evidence is recorded at the trial. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it becomes apparent that the learned Magistrate committed error in not deciding the application filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Sanker Singh v. State, reported in 2010 (9) SCC 479 , has held that there is no bar for the learned Magistrate to entertain the application under Section 190(i)(b) Cr.P.C. for summoning the persons who are not charge-sheeted by the police. 6. Resultantly, this misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 14.12.2011 committing the case to the Sessions Court is hereby quashed. 6. Resultantly, this misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 14.12.2011 committing the case to the Sessions Court is hereby quashed. The learned Sessions Judge concerned is directed to send back the record of the case to the learned Magistrate who shall decide the application filed by the petitioner on merits within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order and the record.The interim order dated 3.2.2012 is vacated. The stay petition is disposed of.The office is directed to forward the copies of this order to the concerned Sessions Judge and the Magistrate forthwith.Petition allowed. *******