ABDUL RAUF AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the proceedings of the charge-sheet No.45/2011 filed after investigation of the FIR No.62/2011 registered at the Police Station Mahamandir, District Jodhpur and the order dated 3.12.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 436, 283, 427 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the PDPP Act and directing to summon the petitioners through warrants of arrest.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the notice to the first charge-sheet filed by the Police after initial investigation, the petitioners were not arrayed as accused. Thereafter, the Police has filed a subsequent chargesheet on 3.12.2012 i.e. after nearly 1-1/2 years of the incident arraying the petitioners as accused for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 435, 283, 427 Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the PDPP Act. The petitioners were not intimated about the proposed charge-sheet and the trial Court without any justification directed that the petitioners be summoned by issuance of warrants of arrest vide the order dated 3.12.2012. Learned counsel submits that ex-facie, the offence under Sec. 436 Penal Code is not made out in this case because the highest prosecution allegation is that a mob of persons set fire to a bus. He submits that a bus would not be covered under the definition of the building or dwelling house referred to in Sec. 436 Penal Code and the cognizance for the said offences is ex-facie, illegal. He submits that the petitioners were not informed of the charge-sheet proposed to be filed against them. They are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He, therefore, prays that the direction issued by the trial court on 3.12.2012 to summon the petitioners by warrant of arrest be modified and the petitioners be directed to be summoned through bailable warrants so that the petitioners can appear before the court and establish their innocence.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.