Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 423 (RAJ)

Akbar v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-18

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the petitioner-complainant against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, whereby the learned Judge rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C . filed by the petitioner- complainant for taking cognizance against respondent Nos.4 to 7 and arraigned them as accused, along with the accused respondents No.2 & 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is per se illegal, erroneous and against the material available on record. Counsel submits that in the FIR, the names of the accused-respondents No.4 to 7 were mentioned, but the Police after investigation filed challan only against accused respondents No.2 & 3. The petitioner-complainant filed applications under Sections 190 & 193 Cr.P.C . before the trial court for summoning the other accused persons, who were not charge-sheeted by the Police. The said applications were rejected by the trial court. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a misc. petition being SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.3546/2016 before this Court, which was dismissed as infructuous by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2018 with liberty to take recourse of procedure provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C . Subsequently, after recording the statements of some witnesses, the petitioner-complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C . for arraigning the respondents No.4 to 7 as accused in trial, but the learned trial court rejected the said application in a mechanical manner vide order dated 10.12.2021. 3. Counsel submits that in the court statements, the witnesses took names of the accused respondents No.4 to 7. Thus, there is ample evidence to take cognizance against the respondent No.4 to 7 and arraign them as accused in this case. But the learned trial court has ignored the material evidence available on record and dismissed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C vide impugned order without assigning any cogent reason. Hence, the impugned order being per se illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside and cognizance may be taken against the respondents No.4 to 7 and they may be arraigned as accused, along with the accused respondents No.2 & 3. 4. Hence, the impugned order being per se illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside and cognizance may be taken against the respondents No.4 to 7 and they may be arraigned as accused, along with the accused respondents No.2 & 3. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 7 have supported the order impugned and submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned as the trial court has passed the same after due appreciation of the material available on record, hence no interference is called for from this Court and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as also material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that learned trial court has considered the statements of the witnesses as well as each and every aspect of the matter and has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C . 7. The witness PW-6 Omprakash Gurjar, who was working as male nurse in Ras Hospital has specifically stated in his court statement that he brought the deceased Abdul Sattar to hospital in Ambulance and the deceased told him that accused respondents No.2 & 3 i.e. Nasir and Chhotu Khan had caused injuries with lathi to him. From the statements of the witnesses, the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence regarding involvement of the respondents No.4 to 7 in the incident. Hence, the trial court has committed no error in dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C . 8. Thus, I find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 9. The order impugned is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court. 10. Consequently, the revision petition hereby is dismissed. 11. Stay application is also dismissed.