RANJEET LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has declined to accept the reports filed under Sec. 169 Crimial P.C. and had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a report was made by respondent No. 2 before the Station House Officer of Police Station Surajpole on 19.8.2008 against one Shri Raj Kumar. On the basis of the said report, a F.I.R. was lodged against Raj Kumar Gurjar for offence under Sections 135 and 138 Electricity Act and 332 and 353 I.P.C. Thereafter the investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against Raj Kumar along with the petitioner for offence under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C. and 135, 138 of the Electricity Act. However, on the application made by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, the matter was re-investigated by the concerned Investigating Officer. During the re-investigation, the co-accused namely Raj Kumar died. The Investigating Officer made a negative final report under Sec. 169 Crimial P.C., before the Court. Vide order dated 12.1.2009, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, declined to accept the report filed under Sec. 169 Cr.P.C.; he sent the matter under Sec. 228 Crimial P.C., to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur to hold the trial for offence under Sections 332 and 353 I.P.C. The trial is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the first statement of Shri Naru, respondent No. 2, was recorded on 19.8.2008 wherein he did not reveal the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. It is only in his supplementary statement dated 28.8.2008 that for the first time respondent No. 2 has claimed that the petitioner was not only present at the scene of crime, but was also involved in preventing the public officers from carrying out their public duty. However, respondent No. 2 again changed his stand in his second supplementary statement on 22.10.2008; he did not utter a single word with regard to the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, respondent No. 2 is an unreliable witness as he is changing his stand with regard to the petitioner's involvement. Moreover, according to him, the learned trial Court has not given any cogent reason for taking cognizance against he petitioner.