Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 686 (RAJ)

Kamal v. State of Rajasthan

2024-04-25

SUDESH BANSAL

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by accused-petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Session Court, Karauli dismissing criminal revision petition and affirming the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Karauli taking cognizance for offence under Section 323 and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners, the cognizance has been taken on the protest petition filed by complainant against the negative final report submitted by Police in connection with FIR 83/2014 registered at Police Station Mandrayal, District Karauli and after taking the cognizance, petitioners have been ordered to be summoned through arrest warrant. 2. It appears from the record that an FIR No.83/2014 dated 24.07.2014 was registered at Police Station Mandrayal, District Karauli stating inter alia that Kamal (petitioner No.1 herein) called Ram Swaroop (deceased) on 17.07.2014 in night at hostel, where other two persons namely Jagdish and Hariom (petitioner No.2 and 3) were also present and a scuffle ensued between them; all three assaulted, Ram Swaroop and he was pushed and dropped from the roof. Ram Swaroop sustained injuries and later on, during treatment scummed to his injuries. This FIR was registered for offences under Sections 143 and 302 IPC. 3. After investigation police submitted negative final report thereafter, complainant filed protest petition on which statements of complainant and witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Judicial Magistrate in the light of statements of complainant and witnesses Chiranji, Matole, Chinti found that it is established that deceased Ram Swaroop was called by Kamal, Hariom and Jagdish to attend party at hostel and thereafter they assaulted with deceased Ram Swaroop. Judicial Magistrate observed that prima facie it is to be ascertained as to whether deceased was pushed from the roof or fell down accidentally. It was observed that on the basis of opinion of doctors deceased died due to injuries which were suffered on 17.07.2014. Witness Ram Murti deposed that, he saw the accused persons, assaulting the deceased. Thus after surfing through the evidence on record as also after recording reasons to disagree with the negative final report, Judicial Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of offence against all three petitioners vide order dated 27.02.2020. 4. Witness Ram Murti deposed that, he saw the accused persons, assaulting the deceased. Thus after surfing through the evidence on record as also after recording reasons to disagree with the negative final report, Judicial Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of offence against all three petitioners vide order dated 27.02.2020. 4. It is settled proposition of law, that the cognizance can be taken on the basis of suspicion and at the stage of cognizance, the evidence is not required to be considered on the parameters that same is sufficient for conviction of the accused. But, if material on record suggest to draw a suspicion to commit offence, Court may take cognizance. In the impugned order, Judicial Magistrate has given reason to disagree with the negative final report and has recorded its satisfaction to take cognizance. 5. The correctness, illegality and perversity of the order of cognizance has been examined on merits by the revisional court. 6. This Court does not find any patent defect, manifest illegality of jurisdiction or law in the impugned order of cognizance warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, the plea as sought to be taken by the petitioners to assail the order of cognizance before this Court, would be available to petitioners to be taken before the trial Court during course of trial. 7. As far as summoning of the accused persons through arrest warrant, at the first stones, after taking the cognizance on the protest petition is concerned, counsel for the petitioner states that petitioners have been granted bail, therefore, in such view, grievance of petitioners, summoning them through arrest warrants has rendered insignificant. 8. With aforesaid observations, without interference to the impugned order, the instant criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.