BHURA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions were filed aggrieved from order dtd. 30/7/2020 in sessions case No. 10/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur whereby the Trial Court has taken cognizance against Heera Devi and Guddi Devi under Ss. 363 and 366 IPC and against Rinku, Vijaypal, Bhura son of Gopi Chand, Bhura son of Pancham Singh under Ss. 363, 366, 376 IPC. The Trial Court has also directed to call these accused by warrant of arrest.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that for elopement of victim with Rajpal FIR No. 166/2014 was registered at Police Station, kaulari, District Dholpur on 8/8/2014 and after investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against Rajpal under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 IPC and after filing of charge-sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur has taken cognizance on 5/11/2014. He further submitted that thereafter matter was committed to learned Sessions Court and when the matter was fixed for arguments on charge then an application under Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. was filed at belated stage on 23/3/2015 for taking cognizance against Jagvir Singh, Virender Singh, Rinku, Mahender Singh, Bhura son of Pancham Singh, Bhura son of Gopi Chand, Vijaypal and Guddi Devi. He further submitted that on 30/7/2020 said application was allowed without any additional evidence and Trial Court has taken cognizance against all these petitioners. He further submitted that once an order of cognizance was passed by the Trial Court then next stage is recording of evidence. He further submitted that after a detailed report by complainant about elopement of adult victim, the police has investigated the matter and after investigation filed a charge-sheet against Rajpal but without considering the circumstances as mentioned by police, the Sessions Court has allowed the application under Sec. of 193 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that victim is an adult lady and at the time of recovery she was found in bridal make-up which indicate that the victim has posed herself as a married woman. He further submitted that as per record collected by police both victim and Rajpal have stayed in a hotel and police has recorded statement of witnesses and in the instant case no evidence to connect present petitioners is available on record. He further submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Court clearly shows that it is a non- application of mind and in mechanical manner cognizance was taken. He further submitted that at the first instance, the Trial Court has issued a warrant of arrest contrary to settled principle of law in case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttrakhand AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that Trial Court is competent to pass an order under Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C.