Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1881 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-10-28

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner Ram Singh challenging the order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Railmagra in Cr. Reference No. 115/2011 whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint against Smt. Vimla and Kalawati in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Railmagra for the offences under Sections 467, 471, 474 and 120B I.P.C. The complaint was sent to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police submitted a Final Report in the matter. Notice of Final Report was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner did not object to the Final Report and accordingly, the same was accepted by order dated 15.7.2005. The police filed a separate complaint against the petitioner under Section 211 I.P.C. for allegedly filing a false complaint and for wasting the time of the Court and the Police. The learned Magistrate held by the order dated 18.1.2013 that the offence under Section 467 I.P.C. was punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of 10 years and thus the case would be triable by the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, he committed the case for trial to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of committal by way of the instant misc. petition. 3. Shri Hemant Jain learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate committed grave error, illegality and abuse of the process of the Court in committing the case to the Sessions Court. He contends that the offence under Section 211 I.P.C. would be triable by the Court of Sessions only when any of the offences for which the complaint was filed is punishable with capital punishment or imprisonment for life. He submits that none of the offences for which the petitioner filed the complaint was punishable with capital punishment and as such, the case would not be triable by the Court of Sessions. He thus submits that the committal order deserves to be quashed. 4. For an appropriate appreciation of the arguments advanced at the bar, the relevant provision of law needs to be considered. He thus submits that the committal order deserves to be quashed. 4. For an appropriate appreciation of the arguments advanced at the bar, the relevant provision of law needs to be considered. The Court by which the offence under Section 211 I.P.C. is to be tried is defined in the Schedule to the Cr.P.C. The Clause third of the Schedule prescribes the situation when the offence under Section 211 I.P.C. would be triable by the Court of Sessions. That situation would only arise when the offence charged is capital or punishable with imprisonment for life. The offence under Section 467 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to life or 10 years. Thus, the offence would fall within the second category of the Second Schedule i.e. the offence being punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or upwards. In this view of the matter, the offence which can be said to be made out against the petitioner, would be triable by the Magistrate of the 1st Class. 5. In wake of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Railmagra committed a grave error, illegality and abuse of process of Court in committing the case to the Sessions Court for trial for the offence under Section 211 of the I.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be accepted arid is hereby allowed. The order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Railmagra is hereby quashed. The learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand shall send back to the matter to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Railmagra for trial in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******