VISHWANATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which arises in this revision is whether cognizance can be taken against those accused who have already been discharged for some offences. The learned Magistrate has relied upon Smt. Vijay Bai v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cri LJ 1754, of this Court in holding that after discharge of some accused persons, if fresh material is found against them then the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance and such an order would not amount to review of the discharge order.

(2.) On the basis of FIR lodged on 11-10-1981, by one Amrelal at Police Station Laxmangarh, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 452 I.P.C. was registered against four petitioners and one Nathmal. After investigation the police submitted a final report but on the protest petition filed by the complainant the trial Court took cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and Nathmal. Thereafter arguments were heard on the question of framing of charge and charge against Nathmal was framed under Sections 452, 323 and 324 I.P.C. while all the four petitioners were discharged. The revision petition before this Court against the discharge of the petitioners was also dismissed.

(3.) In the year 1992 Nathmal died and thereafter the complainant moved an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of the statements of the witnesses examined during the trial. On this application the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners by his order dated 16-4-1994, and the same has been challenged in this revision petition.