BHAGWATI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) N.1, Bhilwara, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 04.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kotadi, District Bhilwara, wherein the learned Magistrate had refused to take cognizance against the accusedpetitioners. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Prem Devi, the respondent No.2, had submitted a written complaint before the Police Station Kotadi, wherein she had claimed that she is resident of village Kotadi. She has certain land on Jahajpur road, where she has a room. According to her, while she was sleeping in the room, Bhagwatilal, Suresh Kumar, Ratanlal and Sohani Devi came and knocked on the door of her house. When she opened the door, Bhagtwatilal, Ratanlal and Suresh entered her house and started assaulting her with kicks and fists. They also pulled her Lugadi (the clothes worn by women). When she raised a hue and cry, the people who lived near her house, rushed to her rescue.

(2.) After investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Report. Therefore, Smt. Prem Devi submitted a protest petition. She got her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and that of her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 04.10.2008, the learned Magistrate accepted the negative FR, and refused to take cognizance against the accused persons. Since Prem Devi was aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2008, she filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. Vide order dated 27.02.2009, the learned Judge not only quashed and set aside the order dated 04.10.2008, but also remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate for re-hearing the parties, and for again passing a cognizance order. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. J.K. Gehlot, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge was not justified in concluding that offences under Sections 451, 323 IPC were made out. Secondly, the learned Judge was not justified in directing the learned Magistrate to take cognizance on the basis of the order dated 27.02.2009. According to the learned counsel, such a direction issued by the learned Judge interferes with the discretionary power of the learned Magistrate.