Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1540 (RAJ)

Jagveer v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-18

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dais 28.5.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tijara, Distt. Alwar sessions case no. 02/2012 whereby he allowed the application filed under Section 519 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant and took cognisance against the petitioner(s) for offence under Sections 366, 344 & 376 IPC and summoned them through arrest warrants. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that on 12.7.2011, the complainant-respondent no. 2 Nawal Kishore lodged a written report at P.S. Tijara, Distt. Alwar with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on 6.7.2011. On the basis of aforesaid report, police registered a case being FIR No. 344/2011 for offence under Section 366 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against accused Sita Ram for offence under Sections 344, 366 and 376 IPC, and thereafter trial court took cognisance against Sita Ram only. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioners, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, statements of as many as 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded. At last, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.RC. before the trial court against Jagveer and Fattu and prayed for taking cognisance against them. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 28.5.2014 partly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, dismissed the same against Fattu but took cognisance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 366, 344 and 376 IPC and summoned them through arrest warrants. Hence this revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.5.2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 28.5.2014 passed by the trial court is contrary to the provisions of law, it has committed serious error in taking cognisance against the petitioners while there was no evidence against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also contended that the Investigating Agency after taking thorough investigation, did not find any case against the petitioners, and during trial also, there is no evidence against the petitioners, but even then the trial court took cognisance against the petitioners and summoned them through arrest warrants. It is also contended that the Investigating Agency after taking thorough investigation, did not find any case against the petitioners, and during trial also, there is no evidence against the petitioners, but even then the trial court took cognisance against the petitioners and summoned them through arrest warrants. Further it has been contended that complainant has filed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only against Jagveer and Fattu, meaning thereby that no such application was filed against petitioner Mahipal, but even then the trial court took cognisance against both the petitioners i.e. Jagveer and Mahipal and not against Fattu. Further, it has been contended that the petitioner Jagveer is a teacher and he Is regularly attending the school for the relevant period, hence impugned order passed by trial court may be set aside, if not, then in the alternative, he prayed that non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners may be converted into bailable warrants. 4. Mr. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the same and contended that after hearing both the parties at length, the court below has rightly passed the order and took cognisance against the petitioners Jagveer and Mahipal while cognisance against Fattu was not taken as there was no evidence against him. It. is also contended that the court below has ample power to take cognisance in accordance with law. In such type of serious cases, non-bailable warrants should not be converted into bailable warrants. Further it has been contended that offences which have been committed by the petitioners are serious offences and such type of oases are increasing day by day in the society, therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below should not be interfered with by this court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below in the impugned order which is reproduced as under: bl izdkj i=koyh ij ifjf{kr xokgku ds c;kuksa o i=koyh ij vkbZ lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij lexz :i ls ik;k x;k fd ihfM+rk yfyrk us vius c;kuksa esa rFkk /kkjk 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;kuksa esa lhrkjke] eghiky] txohj rhuksa }kjk muds lkFk cykRdkj djus dk dFku fd;k gS] tcfd iqfyl }kjk vkjksi i= dsoy lhrkjke ds fo:) is'k fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa xokgku ds c;kukr o 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;kukr o fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij txohj o eghiky dks crkSj vfHk;qDr bl izdj.k esa tksM+s tksus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj i=koyh ij vk, gSa] tcfd Qrrw ds ckcr Lo;a ihfM+rk yfyrk us Hkh dksbZ dFku ugha fd, gSaA ,sls esa vizkFkhZ Qrrw ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj i=koyh ij ugha gSA tcfd eqyfte txohj o eghiky ds fo:) ;ksX; vf/koDrk eqyfte ds rdZ Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] D;ksafd bu nksuksa eqyfteku ckcr Lo;a ihfM+rk yfyrk us vius /kkjk 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;kuksa] dksVZ c;kuksa rFkk /kkjk 161 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;kuksa esa Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k gS vkSj dsoy izn'kZ th&1 ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd bu eqyfteku ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gks rFkk ;ksX; vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ is'k U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2012 ( 1 ) fdz0yk0fj0 jkt0 ist 3216 is'k fd;k gS] ysfdu bl U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa Hkh ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vkns'k fn;k gS] tc i=koyh ij i;kZIre vk/kkj ij eqyfteku dks crkSj vfHk;qdr tksM+s tkus dk ugha ik;k x;k Fkk] tcfd gLrxr izdj.k esa mDr nksuksa eqyfteku ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj i=koyh ij gSA ,sls esa is'k U;kf;d n`"VkUr ls vizkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ cy ugha fey ldrkA vr% mDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 319 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk 16-1-13 vkaf'kd :i ls eqyfte Qrrw dh gn rd [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk vfHk;qDr txohj] eghiky iq=ku gfjflag fuoklh djoM+ dh <+k.kh ftyk vyoj }kjk ihfM+rk dks fnukad 6-7-11 dks vk;qDr lEHkksx djus ds vk'k; ls cyiwoZd ys tkrs gq, mldk vigj.k djuk rFkk mldk lnks"k ifjjks/k djrs gq, mls can j[kuk rFkk mldh bPNk o lgefr ds fcuk mlds fo:) ySafxd lEHkksx djrs gq, cykRlax djus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj ij i=koyh ij gSA ,sls esa bu eqyfteku txohj] eghiky iq=ku gfjflag fuoklh djoM+ dh <+k.kh ftyk vyoj ds fo:) /kkjk 366] 344 o 376 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa dk;Zokgh djus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj gksus ls izlaKku fy;k tkdj izkFkZuk i= vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 6. Accordingly, in view of above, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner(s) to raise all his (the) objections before the trial court, if they deems fit, at appropriate stage of trial, and it is expected d the trial court to decide the same in accordance with law. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that if petitioners surrender before the trial court, and move any bail application before it, same may be decided in accordance with law as early as possible. 8. He is permitted to do so. 9. Ordered accordingly.Revision dismissed. *******