SHAHNAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant-petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc.Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Revision Petition No.91/2014 whereby the learned revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner affirmed and upheld the order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No.140/2004 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner to take cognizance against respondents No.3 to 6 for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner filed complaint on 31.03.2004 against respondents No.2 to 6 for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC before the trial Court and the same was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Kotwali, Sikar where FIR No.126/2014 was registered for aforesaid offences and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against accused-respondent No.2-Shri Mohd. Aslam only on 03.07.2014 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to take cognizance against respondents No.3 to 6 also, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2005 with a liberty to file application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage. Thereafter, statements of as many as eleven prosecution witnesses were recorded by the trial Court and statement of accused-respondent-Shri Mohd.Aslam was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at this stage of the proceedings the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 03.02.2014 with a prayer to take cognizance against respondents No.3 to 6 for the aforesaid offences. Reply to the application was filed by respondent-accused-Mohd.Islam and learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 20.05.2014, which was challenged by her by way of aforesaid revision petition, but without any success.

(3.) Inviting attention towards the statements of PW1-Smt.Shahnaj, PW2-Mohd.Iqbal, brother of petitioner and PW3-Shri Badrudeen, father of petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prima facie sufficient evidence has come on record to take cognizance against respondents No.3 to 6, but the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court without considering the matter in correct perspective dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was further submitted that it is now well settled legal position that at the stage of taking cognizance against the new accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient evidence has come on record to take cognizance against him so that he can face trial alongwith accused, who is already facing trial, but in the present case both the Courts below have applied wrong principle of law to the effect that jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court only if it is satisfied that in all likelihood such person would be convicted. It was further submitted that not only in FIR and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the course of investigation, but also during trial aforesaid witnesses have categorically made specific allegations against respondents No.3 to 6, who are family members of respondent No.2, but the same has been rejected by the Courts below by observing that no specific allegations have been levelled against them.