MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 8.11.2013, whereby, application under section 319 CrPC filed by the non -petitioner No. 1 -Gaindi Devi was allowed. The revision petition against the said order was dismissed on 20.1.2014.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that on a complaint against 6 persons, investigation was made and charge sheet against 5 accused was filed leaving the petitioner. The non -petitioner filed an application under section 190 CrPC for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner as well. The said application was disposed of by the court. The charges were framed against 5 persons followed by trial. Statements of some witnesses were recorded. The complainant then filed an application under section 319 CrPC for taking cognizance against the petitioner. The application aforesaid was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr Div) No. 2, Sri Madhopur, Sikar in ignorance of the material on record. The evidence was not to the effect which may lead to conviction, if remains unrebutted. In absence of it, there was no occasion for the trial court to allow the application under section 319 CrPC. The revisional court also committed same illegality while dismissing the revision. Reference of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of "Anand Sharma versus The State", [ : 2003 Cri.L.J.1057] has been given.

(3.) IT is also stated that the act of the petitioner for commission of offence has been discussed by the court below and thereupon only, cognizance of offence was taken. The petitioner is one who had presented the original copy of the agreement to sell and then substituted it by photo copy by taking original. The act aforesaid was found to be sufficient to make out offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Accordingly, impugned orders may not be interfered.