GORDHAN Vs. STATE AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition u/s. 397/401, Crimial P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 05.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Bharatpur camp Kaman in Sessions Case No. 89/2004 (6/05).

(2.) Complainant non-petitioner No. 2 Raghunath lodged a report at Police Station Kama at 5.00 p.m. On 20.08.1999 with the allegation that the petitioner committed rape with Mst. Manju W/o Gyarsi in the 'Bajra' crop in the field adjacent to the well where she had gone to fetch water. After investigation the police submitted negative final report No. 117/1999 on 31.08.1999. Dis-satisfied with the investigation made by the police, the complainant moved a protest petition before the Court where-upon statements u/ss. 200 & 202 Crimial P.C., were recorded and after hearing the complainant and upon a perusal of the materials on record, the protest petition was dismissed and final report was accepted as indicated above. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant moved a Criminal Revision Petition being No. 578/2000 in this Court which was remitted to the learned Court below vide order dated 25.10.2004 for hearing and decision as per law. The learned Court below after hearing the learned Counsel for complainant ex parte in the absence of the petitioner accused allowed the revision petition vide order dated 05.04.2005 and quashed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and directed that cognizance be taken against the petitioner for the offences u/ss. 376/511, 354 & 379, IPC. Hence this revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the out-set that the parties have now arrived at a compromise. He has further submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate was based on proper appreciation of the materials on records and there was no material to take cognizance against the petitioner for the alleged offences. The learned Court below has committed grave illegality in directing the Magistrate to take cognizance against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the complainant has fairly concedes that the parties have come to terms and if the order dated 5.4.2005 is quashed, he has no objection. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order of the learned Magistrate.