Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 229 (RAJ)

Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-06

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Order : 1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No.2- complainant and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 452, 363, 364 & 365 IPC and issued arrest warrant against them. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.08.2012, complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a written report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that the accused persons, who were armed with deadly weapons, illegally entered the house and abducted his two minor sons namely Ashish and Aman and also threatened to murder them. On this report, Police registered FIR No.173/2012 and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed charge- sheet against some accused persons. However, in respect of the present petitioners, Police filed a negative final report. 3. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against the charge-sheeted accused persons and commenced the trial in which statements of two prosecution witnesses namely Mahendra Kumar (complainant) and Kamla were recorded. 4. Thereafter, complainant/respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for taking cognizance against the present petitioners. However, the learned trial court dismissed the said application vide order dated 01.07.2022. 5. After statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e PW-1 to PW-8, the respondent No.2/complainant again filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioners filed reply to the said application. After hearing both the parties, the trial court allowed the application vide order dated 20.02.2024 and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 452, 363, 364 & 365 IPC. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against five accused persons namely Sajjan Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Rohtash Kumar, Subhash Chandra & Hunataram and in respect of the present petitioners, a negative final report was filed by the Police. Thereafter, the trial court commenced trial against the aforesaid charge-sheeted accused persons. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against five accused persons namely Sajjan Kumar, Sanjay Kumar, Rohtash Kumar, Subhash Chandra & Hunataram and in respect of the present petitioners, a negative final report was filed by the Police. Thereafter, the trial court commenced trial against the aforesaid charge-sheeted accused persons. Counsel submits that during trial, one accused person namely Sanjay Kumar had expired and in respect of the other accused persons, trial has already been concluded and vide order dated 27.09.2024, the trial court convicted two accused persons namely Sajjan Kumar and Rohtash Kumar and acquitted two accused persons namely Subhash Chandra & Hunataram. Counsel submits that since the trial has already been concluded in the matter, there is no occasion for re- trial. Counsel submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the final report submitted by the Police which was submitted after thorough investigation and the main accused persons have already been convicted by the trial court. Therefore, the impugned order of taking cognizance against the present petitioners is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant have supported the impugned order and submitted that after taking into consideration the material available on record, the trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the present petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The impugned order is a reasoned one and therefore, warrants no interference from this Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as well as material available on record. 9. In the present case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2 in respect of abduction of his two sons against the accused persons including the present petitioners. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against some accused persons and in respect of the present petitioners, Police filed a negative final report. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against the charge-sheeted accused persons and commenced trial. Thereafter, complainant/respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for taking cognizance against the present petitioners, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2022. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against the charge-sheeted accused persons and commenced trial. Thereafter, complainant/respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for taking cognizance against the present petitioners, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2022. Subsequently, after conclusion of the evidence, the respondent No.2/complainant again filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, which was allowed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 20.02.2024 and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 10. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the trial in respect of the four charge-sheeted accused persons named above has already been concluded and the trial court vide order dated 27.09.2024 convicted only two accused persons and acquitted rest of two accused persons. The incident relates back to the year 2012 and the cognizance against the present petitioners was taken by the trial court in the year 2024, whereas trial in respect of charge-sheeted accused persons has already been concluded itself in the years 2024. 11. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences only relying upon the testimony of the witnesses, whereas there are serious contradictions in their testimony. The police after thorough investigation filed negative final report against the present petitioners and there is no reason to disbelive the final report. The main accused in the case have already been convicted by the trial court. Thus, the learned trial court has committed serious illegality in allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and wrongly taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 452, 363, 364 & 365 IPC. 12. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of taking cognizance dated 20.02.2024 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. 13. Stay application is also decided.