LALITA Vs. STATE OF RAJ. & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara dated 14.1.2004 whereby he has set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara taking cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 494, 494/109 I.P.C.

(2.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel is that the revisional court while setting aside the order of the trial court has no power to direct the learned Magistrate to take cognziance against the accused person and try him according to law. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Gulab Jati & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2000-2001 (Suppl.) Cr LR (Raj.) page 592 . There is substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel. The petition deserves to be allowed with the clarification that In view of the provisions of Sec. 398 Cr.PC, the revisional court could have only directed for passing of fresh order after further inquiry. At this stage, it may be made clear that the further inquiry only means reconsideration of the existing evidence.

(3.) Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara dated 14.1.2004 is modified. The order so far as it relates to taking of cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 494 read with 109 Penal Code is. concerned the same is set aside. It appears that other accused persons have not challenged the said order. However, since this Court has interfered with the order of the ut Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara with respect to one accused person, it is expedient to make applicable to other accused persons who have not challenged. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass fresh order after reconsideration of the existing material on record. Petition Allowed.