Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 500 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan Anr.

2013-03-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 14.8.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused has been accepted and the petitioners have been summoned through warrants of arrest to face the trial for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 148, 307/149 and 324/149 I.P.C. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the order summoning the accused is an exparte order and as the petitioners were not found involved in the offence during investigation, they be given opportunity to appear before the trial court and submit all their objections before the trial court at the appropriate stage. He further submits that as the police has given final report in this case qua the petitioners, the petitioners be directed to be summoned through a bailable warrant. 3. Per contra Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent submits that right from the F.I.R. and during the investigation the injured Manoj Kumar has made a specific allegation that the petitioner Ramchander inflicted indiscriminate knife blows on his back. Learned counsel submits that the police without any justification has filed a final report in the matter, therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the order summoning the accused as additional accused. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that Maonj Kumar right from the Parcha Bayan and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has alleged that he was caused knife injuries on his back by the petitioner Ramchander. The plea of alibi which has been utilised by the police for giving a final report is subject to examination by the Court during the course of trial but at this stage the order summoning the accused cannot be said to be illegal or unjust. As regards the prayer of the counsel for the petitioners to summon the petitioners by bailable warrant, the same deserves acceptance regarding the petitioner no. 2 Puspa, petitioner no. 3 Rajni, petitioner no. 4 Pankaj and petitioner no. 5 Vidhya but so far as the petitioner no. As regards the prayer of the counsel for the petitioners to summon the petitioners by bailable warrant, the same deserves acceptance regarding the petitioner no. 2 Puspa, petitioner no. 3 Rajni, petitioner no. 4 Pankaj and petitioner no. 5 Vidhya but so far as the petitioner no. 1 Ram Chandra is concerned there is a specific allegation against him that he caused injuries by knife on the back of of Manoj Kumar and therefore qua Ram Chandra the prayer is not considered fit to be accepted. 5. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in part. Whilst maintaining the order summing the petitioners for the offences stated above, the direction to summon the petitioners no. 2 to 5 by warrant of arrest is hereby modified and now these petitioners shall be summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioners no. 2 to 5 may appear before the trial court within four weeks and furnish their bonds. However, the warrant of arrest issued against petitioner Ram Chandra is maintained.Revision partly allowed. *******