DHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that in the F. I. R. , it is not categorically mentioned that a fire-arm was used, the injury report of the injured does not show any injury of a fire arm and as such no offence under section 307, I. P. C. is made out. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 307, I. P. C. under the impression that a fire-arm was used by the accused persons. He also submits that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance against the accused Chandra Singh, Pankaj Quayum Qureshiand Paras Ram for any offence, there remains three accused-persons only, as such there arises no question of the commission of offences under Sections 147 & 148 I. P. C, after thorough investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 323, I. P. C. only and in rare case only a Court can take cognizance against other persons under Section 319, Cr. P. C. He placed reliance upon AIR 1983 SC 66 in support of his contentions. He lastly submits that the parties have compromised all their disputes, compromise has also been filed in this Court on 11. 01. 1993 and this Court can grant permission under Section 320 (6), Cr. P. C. for compounding the offences punishable under Section 323 & 447, I. P. C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant Devi Lal and the learned Public Prosecutor admit that compromise has been arrived at in between the parties, it has also been filed in this Court by them on 11. 01. 1993 and they have nothing more to submit.