LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-214

ROHIT YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On March 15, 2019
ROHIT YADAV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 26/10/2018 passed in S.T. No.50/2018 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bina, Distt. Sagtar whereby learned trial Court took cognizance against the applicant under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. and arrayed him as co-accused and issued process for his appearance.

(2.) The facts giving rising to this revision, in short, are that in connection of Crime No.67/2018 registered at Police Station, Bhangarh, Bina, Distt. Sagar, after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused-Udayraj and Harpal for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC before the Court of JMFC, Bina, Distt. Sagar registered as Criminal Case No.397/2018. Since the offence under Section 436 of IPC is triable by Sessions Court, therefore, the case committed vide committal order dated 05/10/2018 to the Court of Session for trial from where the case transferred to 1st ASJ, Bina for trial. On 26/10/2018 on the basis of documents filed by the prosecution along with charge sheet, learned Sessions Judge found that the applicant was in complicity with the offence committed by other coaccused after elaborate discussion on that point invoked the power enshrined under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the applicant and arrayed him as an accused thereafter issued notice for his appearance vide order dated 26/10/2018.

(3.) Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed this criminal revision on the ground that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. There is no material available on record to constitute ingredients of any offence against the applicant. There is no material on record to create the hope of reasonable prospect of conviction of the applicant and there is no other provision to justify taking cognizance against the applicant at this stage, therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order.