HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.4.2010 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3 Bharatpur Head Quarter Bayana in Sessions Case No. 27/2008 whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution for taking cognizance in FIR No. 118/2001 registered at Police Station Fialena, Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur against the accused petitioner under Sections 147, 323, 341, 379 IPC was allowed and the court issued warrant of arrest against the accused petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a written report on 13.6.2001 at Police Station Halena Distt. Bharatpur and on that FIR No. 118/2001 came to be registered for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 379 IPC. After usual investigation the police filed charge sheet on 4.12.2002 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 326, 307 and 379 IPC against the persons named in the charge sheet and final report was submitted by the police against the accused petitioner. It is alleged that after registering the FIR, during investigation the police arrested the accused petitioner in FIR No. 118/2001 and FR was submitted in respect of the accused petitioner and further the police moved application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. before the judicial Magistrate concerned stating therein that after thorough investigation, investigating agency came to the conclusion that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. The complainant filed protest petition on 25.1.2003. The Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 28.2.2005 rejected the protest petition after hearing both the sides. Aggrieved against the order dated 28.2.2005 the complainant filed a revision petition before the revisional court and the complainant did not press the revision petition and the same was dismissed as not pressed by the revisional court. The Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track No. 3 Bharatpur HQ Bayana after hearing arguments framed charge against the persons against whom charge sheet was filed but did not consider it proper to frame charge against the accused petitioner. After framing the charge, trial commenced and statements of 9 witnesses were recorded by the Sessions Court. On 5.3.2010 the complainant non -petitioner No. 2 filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused petitioner. It is alleged that without hearing the accused petitioner the trial Court allowed the application for taking cognizance against the accused petitioner vide order dated 1.4.2010. Against this order the accused petitioner filed this revision petition for quashing the order taking cognizance against him.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments and contended that once cognizance has been taken under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be set aside and trial should be continued against the accused petitioner and he be directed to appear before the court concerned as per the directions given by the trial Court.