JAGVEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dais 28.5.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tijara, Distt. Alwar sessions case no. 02/2012 whereby he allowed the application filed under Sec. 519 Cr.RC. moved by the complainant and took cognisance against the petitioner(s) for offence under Secs. 366, 344 & 376 IPC and summoned them through arrest warrants.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that on 12.7.2011, the complainant-respondent no. 2 Nawal Kishore lodged a written report at P.S. Tijara, Distt. Alwar with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place on 6.7.2011. On the basis of aforesaid report, police registered a case being FIR No. 344/2011 for offence under Sec. 366 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against accused Sita Ram for offence under Secs. 344, 366 and 376 IPC, and thereafter trial court took cognisance against Sita Ram only. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioners, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, statements of as many as 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded. At last, the complainant filed an application under Sec. 319 Cr.RC. before the trial court against Jagveer and Fattu and prayed for taking cognisance against them. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 28.5.2014 partly allowed the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C, dismissed the same against Fattu but took cognisance against the petitioners for offences under Secs. 366, 344 and 376 IPC and summoned them through arrest warrants. Hence this revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.5.2014.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order dated 28.5.2014 passed by the trial court is contrary to the provisions of law, it has committed serious error in taking cognisance against the petitioners while there was no evidence against them and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also contended that the Investigating Agency after taking thorough investigation, did not find any case against the petitioners, and during trial also, there is no evidence against the petitioners, but even then the trial court took cognisance against the petitioners and summoned them through arrest warrants. Further it has been contended that complainant has filed the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. only against Jagveer and Fattu, meaning thereby that no such application was filed against petitioner Mahipal, but even then the trial court took cognisance against both the petitioners i.e. Jagveer and Mahipal and not against Fattu. Further, it has been contended that the petitioner Jagveer is a teacher and he Is regularly attending the school for the relevant period, hence impugned order passed by trial court may be set aside, if not, then in the alternative, he prayed that non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners may be converted into bailable warrants.