RICHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dt. 25-5-89 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Merta whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 342, 34, 330, 166, 376/114, 376/511 and 114, I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Ramlal while in custody sent complaints against the petitioner and some other police officials including Dy. S. P. Premnath Soni alleging that these persons tortured him and his brother-in-law Narayan and also stated that he was made to have sexual intercourse with his mother Moolki and his brother-in-law Narayan was thrown on his sister-in-law Patashi to commit sexual intercourse. Thereupon, a first information report No. 152/88 was recorded against the petitioner and investigation was conducted by several police officers. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and some other police officials under Section 330/34, I.P.C. The petitioner and the other co-accused Premnath moved applications before the learned Court below stating that from the challan papers no case is made out against them. The learned Magistrate, while dismissing the applications vide his order dt. 25-5-89 took cognizance against the petitioner as aforesaid. Hence, this misc. petition.

(3.) Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false and concocted complaint has been filed against the petitioner by the complainant to save himself and the press media high lighted the matter. He also submits that the learned trial Court without considering the evidence available on record and also without considering the reports submitted by D.I.G. C.I.D. (Vigilance) and S.P. C.I.D. (CB) took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 342, 34, 330, 166, 376/114, 376/511 and 114, I.P.C. beyond the challan papers which has resulted into abuse of the process of the Court particularly when the cognizance taken against the main accused Premnath has already been quashed. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner deserves to be set aside under the inherent powers of this Court. He has placed reliance on Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, AIR 1956 SC 44. Mr. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor submits that no interference is called for in the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.