SURESH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 7.7.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp Mahwa. District Dausa whereby, Revision Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed and order dated 23.5.2016 whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioners was upheld.

(2.) In brief the factual matrix of the case are that FIR No. 534/2014 was registered on 2.10.2014 under Sections 143, 323, 341, 307 and 302 of I.P.C. in relation to an incident which took place on 30.9.2014. Police after due investigation submitted challan against Chhotelal and Kailash. An application was filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 18.12.2014 and simultaneously the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. A Revision Petition was preferred by the complainant. The Revisional Court vide order dated 6.4.2016 quashed the order dated 18.12.2014. The committal order was also quashed and the matter was remanded back for rehearing on cognizance. Learned Magistrate took cognizance against Chhotelal and Kailsah as well as the present petitioners vide order dated 23.5.2016. A Revision Petition was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2017.

(3.) It is contended by Counsel for the petitioners that there is no provision under the Code by which cognizance order be set aside by the Magistrate and by which a case can be remanded back for rehearing on the question of cognizance. It is also contended that once an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. is dismissed by the Magistrate and the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Court of Sessions is not empowered to set aside the committal order and remand the case for rehearing on the question of cognizance as cognizance is taken of the offence and not of offender.