BIMLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Judge directed that the statements of the complainant, of her husband, and of any other witnesses, which she may want to produce, shall be recorded in Sessions case No.25/2009. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.02.2009, the petitioner's son, Hawa Singh, went missing. Therefore, on 09.05.2009 the petitioner's husband filed a report for missing person at Police Station Bhadra. The Investigating Officer although recorded the statements of few of the persons, but the investigation did not proceed any further. Subsequently, on 12.07.2009, Hawa Singh's step-sister, Ms. Sushila lodged a complaint against Romi @ Rominder for offence under Sec. 364 Penal Code before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. The said complaint was sent for further investigation under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C., to the Police Station Bhadra. On the basis of the said complaint, a formal FIR, FIR No.294/2009 was chalked out. During the investigation not only Romi, but also others namely, Kumari Pramila, Raj Kumar, Ratan Singh and Om Prakash were arrested. However, thereafter on 28.07.2009, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. In the said complaint, she claimed that Sushila's husband and three other persons namely Govind, Daya Ram, and Kaushalya entered into a criminal conspiracy, kidnapped and killed her son, Hawa Singh. The said complaint was also sent to the police station for further investigation under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. But, the SHO, Bhadra neither chalked out a FIR, nor investigated the case.

(2.) According to the FIR No.294/09, the police submitted a charge-sheet for offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, and 365 Penal Code before the ACJM, Bhadra. The charge-sheet in FIR No.294/09 and the complaint submitted by the petitioner were clubbed together. Since the police did not investigate any further upon the complaint which was sent for further investigation, the petitioner filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge requesting that her statement and the statement of her witnesses should be recorded, as the police had refused to register FIR and had refused to investigate the case any further. Vide order dated 13.04.2011, the learned Judge has directed the statement of her, of her husband and of any other witnesses shall be recorded. However, the order is slightly unclear. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the said impugned judgment is rather unclear as it does not specify whether the statement of the petitioner should be recorded in Sessions Case No.25/2009 or whether it should be recorded for the complaint that was lodged by the petitioner before the ACJM. He further contends that this confusion was confounded by the fact that both the cases were clubbed together. Therefore, a clarification should be made and the learned trial Court should be directed to record the statements of the petitioner under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C., and the statements of her witnesses, if any, under Sec. 202 Crimial P.C. Moreover, after recording of the statements, the Court should be directed to proceed further and consider the question whether the cognizance can be taken or not thereafter. The learned Public Prosecutor, in all fairness, and in the opinion of this Court rightly so, has conceded that the operative portion of the impugned order is ambiguous.