Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 463 (RAJ)

Diwan Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revisions have been filed by the petitioner complaint against the order dated 8.1.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Revision No. 181/2003 whereby the learned Revision Court has quashed the order dated 30.5.2001 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Rajgarh in complaint No. 35/2001. The learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the petitioner had directed taking of cognizance by the order dated 30.5.2001. The accused challenged the order taking cognizance by filing separate two revisions and the Revisional Court quashed the order impugned and directed the trial Court to consider the fact that the respondents herein were the police officers who had apprehended the petitioner in a case of robbery and thus a consideration of the document of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in the aforesaid case was essential before order taking cognizance could be passed against the accused. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that at the stage of framing of charge only material available on complaint is to be perused and nothing beyond that. He, therefore, submits that the direction issued by the Revisional Court whilst setting aside the order taking cognizance that the learned Magistrate shall reconsider the matter after perusing the charge-sheet filed against the accused in pursuance to the investigation of the F.I.R. Nos. 121/2001 and 122/2001 of P.S. Rajgarh is absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. 3. Per contra Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the learned Magistrate is authorised to look into the possible defence of the accused even at the stage of taking cognizance. He submits that the respondents were police officers who were discharging official duties and apprehended the complainant and two F.I.R.'s No. 121 and 122 of 2001 were registered against him and after investigation charge-sheets were filed. The present complaint was filed as a counter blast against the action of the respondents in apprehending the complainant in relation to F.I.R. Nos. 121 and 122/2001. He contends that as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar & Anr., reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 , the learned Magistrate even at the stage of framing charge can consider the defence of the accused. 121 and 122/2001. He contends that as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar & Anr., reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 , the learned Magistrate even at the stage of framing charge can consider the defence of the accused. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the Revisional Court does not call for any interference. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the orders impugned. 5. From a perusal of the order impugned and the record, it is apparent that the respondents herein are the police officers who were posted at P.S. Rajgarh at the relevant lime. Two F.I.R.'s No. 121 and 122 of 2001 were registered against the petitioner party at the Police Station Rajgarh for serious offences and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet against the accused. It is in relation to the very same course of acts, the complaint in issue was filed by the complainant Diwan Chand. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate was very much entitled to resort to inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for taking the requisite facts on record. The learned Magistrate is not required to proceed mechanically on a complaint and issue process against the accused. The nature of allegations and the part played by the accused has to be kept in mind before issuing process. In the instant case, there is sufficient material on record to show that the respondents herein were acting as the public servants while being posted at P.S. Rajgarh and thus, even if any incident took place before at the relevant time, it was obligatory upon the learned Magistrate to have directed an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., so that the truth of the matter could be brought to light. That apart as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji (supra) the Magistrate can even look into the possible defence of the accused even at the summoning stage. Thus, the order passed by the Revision Court remanding the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration does not call for any interference. If so required, the Magistrate may direct a police enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. so that both sides of the matter can be brought on record.Resultantly, the revision being devoid of any merit is rejected.Revision dismissed. *******