NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 4.11.2004 of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur District Jaipur dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 17.4.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur District Jaipur whereby cognizance under Sections 342 and 347 IPC read with section 120B IPC and 109 IPC was taken against the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this misc. petition are that one criminal complaint came to be instituted by Kalyan against the petitioner and three others namely Man Singh, Surendra Singh and Bhanwar Singh under Sections 342, 347, 379, 427 read with Section 120B IPC and 109 IPC. In support of the complaint statements of three witnesses namely, Bhuramal, Badri Narain and Gulla were recorded. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that there was no evidence against the petitioner for taking cognizance under sections 342, 347 read with section 120B IPC and section 109 IPC, but cognizance was taken against him vide order dated 17.4.2002. The petitioner preferred revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge which was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur District Jaipur but same was dismissed vide order dated 4.11.2004. The learned counsel stated that the criminal trial initiated against the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur District Jaipur is absolutely abuse of the process of law. The learned counsel contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner nor the name of the petitioner was taken by any witnesses whose statements were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before taking the cognizance. None of the ingredient of the alleged offence is proved on record. The learned counsel further argued that if the impugned orders are allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice as an innocent person is dragged in criminal trial.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court took cognizance against the accused petitioner after recording the statements of three witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the revisional court has rightly dismissed the revision petition against the order taking cognizance against the petitioner. There is no infirmity in the order taking cognizance against the accused petitioner and the revisional court rightly exercised the powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. dismissing the revision petition against the order taking cognizance on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.