Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1635 (RAJ)

Allabux v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-17

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 29.1.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur whereby he had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 458, 323, 354/34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioners be set aside along with the order dated 3.6.2013 passed by the Revisional Court. 2. Regarding the incident dated 10.5.2012, two versions have been propounded. One by the petitioner and another by the respondent. 3. Shri M.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that F.I.R. containing version of the petitioner was registered prior in time to the registration of the F.I.R. at the behest of the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that three persons from the side of the petitioners had received injuries and the family of the respondent No. 2 is being prosecuted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. It is contended that as a counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 at a belated stage had come out with the version that the petitioners had forcibly trespassed into the house of the respondent No. 2 and caused simple injuries to her and also abused her in the name of her caste. 4. It is stated that the version of tire respondent-complainant was investigated and no truth was found therein and hence, the Investigating Agency had filed final report in negative form and absolved the petitioners of the alleged offences. 5. The order taking cognizance on tire protest petition filed by the respondent No. 2 has been assailed on the ground that the Court having considered the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioners ought to have discarded the version given by the complainant. 6. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that at the time of taking cognizance the test of prima facie is to be applied. At that stage, appreciation of evidence is not called for and the Court cannot decide out of two versions which version is correct as it requires evidence and its appreciation. 6. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that at the time of taking cognizance the test of prima facie is to be applied. At that stage, appreciation of evidence is not called for and the Court cannot decide out of two versions which version is correct as it requires evidence and its appreciation. However, after hearing counsel for the petitioners this Court is of the view that to avoid emergence of the conflicting finding in parallel proceedings, the version given by the petitioners and the complainant are required to be tried by one Court separately but simultaneously. 7. It is ordered that the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 87/2012 registered at the instance of respondent No. 2 and case arising out of F.I.R. No. 80/2012 registered at Police Station Srikaranpur lodged by the petitioner Ramjan shall be tried by one Court separately and simultaneously The Court of the concerned Magistrate who had taken the cognizance is directed to commit the case lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2, to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Srikaranpur. The Session Judge, Sriganganagar is directed to entrust the trial of the case arising out of F.I.R. No. 80/2012 registered at Police Station, Srikaranpur at the instance of petitioner Ramjan to Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sriganganagar. As stated earlier, the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases shall try both the cases separately and simultaneously. 8. Considering the nature of the offences alleged and the fact that the Investigating Agency had found no truth in the version given by the respondent, it is ordered that personal appearance of the petitioners before the Court below shall remain exempted subjected to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners shall file an undertaking that during the trial of the petitioners, they shall be represented through their counsel. (ii) That the undertaking shall specifically state that the evidence recorded in absence of the petitioners but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. (iii) That the petitioners shall undertake to appear before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge, recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., at the time of delivery of judgment or at any other time, when trial Court may seek their presence. (iii) That the petitioners shall undertake to appear before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge, recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., at the time of delivery of judgment or at any other time, when trial Court may seek their presence. (iv) Thai to facilitate exemption of the personal appearance of the petitioners in the trial Court, the summoning Court is directed to accept bail bonds of the petitioners, upon their appearance in the Court. The bail bonds so furnished shall enure, during the Court of the trial. Petition disposed of. *******