LAXMI NIWAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition complainant Laxmi Niwas has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 26.8.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Jr. Dn.), Nagaur who by impugned order has dropped the proceedings against the non -petitioners keeping in view the common cause pronouncement of the Apex Court.

(2.) THE submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners are that though in the court below challan was filed by the SHO on 23.4.1990 for offences Under Sections 323, 325 and 341 I.P.C. However, till the impugned order some of the accused persons were not present in the court. On their behalf learned Counsel appeared and prayed for their exemption, the charges could not be framed. The delay so caused was on the part of accused persons and not on the prosecution. Learned Counsel relied upon two pronouncement of our own High Court referred as Mohd. Harun v. Mohd. Khalil and Ors., 1998 (2) RCD 883 and Subhash Chander v. State of Raj.,, 1997 Cri. L.R. 41.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions. In the pronouncement referred above the facts were not identical to the matter at hand, Here though on some of the dates of hearings Sriniwas or Satya Narain one of the accused persons were not present and their presence were exempted through their Counsel. However, on so many dates of hearing all the accused persons were present even then no steps to frame charges were taken. It is also a fact to keep in mind that cross case was also registered against the petitioners in which subsequently there was compromise between the parties but in the matter at hand, the record was requisitioned here therefore, no compromise could be filed. Even assuming that no such compromise was ever entered into the matter at hand. The nature of offence was very trifle being Under Sections 323, 325 and 341 I.P.C. their being a fracture at the base of posterior aspect of the little finger of right hand. The occurrence took place as back as on 19.2.1990 and it being more than a decade old it will not be in the interest of justice to send the matter back to trial court.