Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1157 (RAJ)

Mangal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-08-09

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2016
ORDER : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assail the order dated 03.09.2015 passed by Court of A.C.J.M. Bandikui District Dausa, whereby ld. Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 452 and 354 I.P.C. against the petitioners. A further prayer has been made that the order dated 16.04.2016 passed by Revisional Court below be also set aside, whereby order taking cognizance by Court of A.C.J.M. Bandikui, was affirmed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners suffered injuries in the occurrence, at the instance of complainant to the cross-version. First Information Report was registered at instance of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had given a cross-version. Counsel has further submitted that cross-version was investigated by the Police, and the Police came to a conclusion that complainant to cross-version had lodged a false First Information Report, hence, Investigating Agency submitted a Final Report in negative form. Aggrieved against the same, complainant filed a protest petition. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that in protest petition, so filed, the Court of Magistrate had summoned the petitioners to stand trial for offences punishable under Sections 341 & 354 I.P.C. Counsel further contends that the finding given by the Investigating Agency that the petitioners had not committed any offence was just and proper and the same could not be ignored by the Court below while deciding protest petition. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Court below reveals that the trial Court had proceeded to record the statement of the complainant under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and taking preliminary evidence recorded, the trial Court had summoned the petitioners to stand trial. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that at this juncture, oral evidence, emerging in the preliminary evidence before the trial Court cannot be ignored. The documents in favour of the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the order of cognizance, as the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the documents relied, raise disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, the evidence gathered and to be produced before the trial Court require appreciation. The documents in favour of the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the order of cognizance, as the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the documents relied, raise disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, the evidence gathered and to be produced before the trial Court require appreciation. Hence, it will be for the concerned Court to evaluate, during trial the evidence to find, whether the petitioners had committed any offence or not. 6. However, considering that the Investigating Agency had found the petitioners innocent and the complainant has named as many as eight members of the family of accused, which include the ladies also, this Court is of the view that qua minor offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 I.P.C. personal appearance of the petitioners before the ld. trial Court can be exempted. 7. Hence, the present petition is, hereby, disposed of by issuing following direction: "A. That the proceedings in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 847/2014 registered at Police Station Bandikui for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 452 and 379 I.P.C. lodged at the instance of the petitioner No. 1 shall be tried separately, but simultaneously with the cross version, i.e. criminal case bearing No. 646/2015 pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Bandikui." 8. It is further ordered that the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court shall remain exempted, subject to filing of an undertaking in which following conditions shall be incorporated:- (i) That the petitioners shall specify in the undertaking that they shall appear before the Court at the time of framing of charges, recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment. Petitioners also undertake that during trial, petitioners shall be represented by a lawyer. (ii) That the petitioners shall also specify in the undertaking that evidence recorded in their absence, but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. (iii) That the petitioners shall also specify in the undertaking that they shall appear before the trial Court as and then trial Court direct them to do so. (iv) That the petitioners shall not dispute their identity. (iii) That the petitioners shall also specify in the undertaking that they shall appear before the trial Court as and then trial Court direct them to do so. (iv) That the petitioners shall not dispute their identity. (v) That the trial Court may incorporate any condition or conditions in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioners." Upon disposal of main petition, stay application, filed therewith does not survives and the same is also disposed of.