NAVEEN KUMAR RAMPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dtd. 10/8/2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Ajmer (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Criminal Case No.275/2004 whereby, while allowing an application filed under Sec. 319 CrPC by the prosecution, cognizance against the petitioner has been taken under Ss. 409, 467, 468 & 471 read with Sec. 120-B IPC and has been summoned through arrest warrant.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. Manna Devi submitted a written complaint in the learned trial Court stating therein that she, alongwith her two sons namely Laxman Chand and Mahendra Kumar had gone to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on 12/10/2002 for opening of the bank accounts in her sons' name and handed over a sum of ?40,000/- to the petitioner to deposit a sum of ?20,000/- each in the bank accounts in her sons' name. It was further stated that after completion of paper formalities, the original passbooks were handed over by the co-accused Bhanwar Lal at her home. It was alleged that when she went to withdraw the amount, it transpired that the passbooks were forged and no bank accounts in the names of her sons were ever opened. The complaint was sent for investigation under Sec. 156(3) CrPC whereupon, an FIR No.124/2003 came to be registered. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the co-accusedBhanwar Lal for offence under Ss. 406, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. During the course of his trial, the prosecution moved an application under Sec. 319 CrPC for summoning the petitioner, which has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 10/8/2004, impugned herein.

(3.) Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence on record to show his involvement in the offence alleged. He submits that the learned trial Court has passed the order relying upon the statements of Smt. Manna Devi (PW-8), Mahendra Kumar (PW-09) & Laxman Chand (PW-10); however, they have levelled no allegations against him during their deposition. Relying upon a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab & Ors. and other connected appeals: (2014) 3 SCC 92, learned counsel would submit that the power under Sec. 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence is available against a person proposed to be proceeded with which is lacking in the instant case. He, therefore, prays that the criminal revision petition be allowed and the order dtd. 10/8/2004 be quashed and set aside.