NARSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 17.5.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh taking cognizance and summoning against the petitioners for offences under Sections 366 and 366/120B I.P.C. along with co-accused Rooplal in Criminal Regular Case No.84/2007 in relation to FR No.101/2005 as upheld by the order dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh.

(3.) Assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case, the principal accused Roop Lal was the person who had abducted the girl Mst. Mohan. It has been submitted that the police after thorough investigation gave a final report in the matter and the learned Magistrate whilst taking cognizance against the petitioners, has not considered the reasons given by the police in giving the final report. It has further been submitted that in the statements of abducted girl recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C., there was no mention about the petitioners having participated in the abduction of the girl and as such, cognizance against them was bad in the eye of law. It has also been submitted that there was a grave contradiction in the statements of the girl recorded under Sec. 161 and under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. and as such, the cognizance order deserves to be quashed.