JAI SINGH PUNIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these seventeen Misc. Petitions arise out of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sardar Shahar, Distt. Churu dt. 27-2-2007, they are being disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the petitioners for the offences Under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120B IPC in the matter of FIR No. 169/06 of Police Station, Sardar Shahar, District Churu. The matter was investigated by the police and charge-sheet was filed against Ravi Shanker Mathur, A. En., PHED (Water Works Department) and against rest of the accused, who are now petitioners before this Court, the investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr. P. C. Learned Magistrate on the basis of this charge-sheet filed on 10-2-2007 took cognizance against the above 17 petitioners against whom the charge-sheet was kept pending Under Section 173(8) Cr PC along with accused Ravi Shanker. Petitioners challenged the order of taking cognizance against them by way of revision petitions, but by the order of this Court dt. 15-5-2007 passed in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 181/07, the revision petitions were ordered to be withdrawn with liberty to file Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr. P. C, therefore, these Misc. Petitions have been filed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor along with learned Counsel for the complainant.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant that in view of the judgment of this Court passed in Natwarlal v. State of Rajasthan,2008 3 WLC(Raj) 497, the order of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is revisable only by the Sessions Court, therefore, this Court should not interfere by entertaining these Misc. Petitions filed Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. It is further argued that once the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr PC keeping investigation pending will not come in way and that order can only be challenged by way of filing revision before the Sessions Court. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance on the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre, 1995 AIR(SC) 231; Swil Ltd. v. State of Delhi, 2001 AIR(SC) 2747 and Aunti Ram Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 1 WLC(Raj) 635.