RADHESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under S. 482 read with S. 407(1), Cr. P.C. for recalling this Court's order dated 19-9-1994, which was corrected vide order dated 22-9-1994 passed in S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 584/94 "Rajeev Joshi v. State", whereby the sessions case arising out of FIR No. 150/91, Police Station, Amba Mata, Udaipur, which was committed by the learned Addl. CJM, SPE Cases, Jaipur, was withdrawn from the file of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District and transferred to the file of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur for trial in accordance with law.

(2.) Petitioner is the real brother of deceased Smt. Manisha, who was married in February, 1985 to accused non-petitioner Rajeev Joshi and who died on the night intervening 8th and 9th Oct. 1991 due to extensive burn injuries inside the house of her husband situated in Udaipur. She was immediately taken to the hospital, where she is alleged to have made two dying declarations orally one to Dr. Miss Savita and other to a Magistrate. The dying declaration said to have been made to the magistrate could not be completed because of her serious condition. Accused non-petitioner Rajeev Joshi reported the incident to the SHO. P. S., Amba Mata, Udaipur alleging that Smt. Manisha had committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene and torching her to fire. Subsequently Crime No. 150/91 Police Station, Amba Mata, Udaipur was registered on the report of petitioner for the offences u/S. 498A and 304-B, IPC, which was initially investigated by the Dy. S. P., Incharge of the Police Station. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to the Addl. S.P., C.I.D. and S.P. CID, Crime Branch. Ultimately, the petitioner filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7022/91 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur and vide order dated 12th Aug. 1992, the said writ petition was allowed and it was directed that investigation of the said case be transferred from the CID., (CB) to the CBI, that henceforth the CBI shall investigate the case and proceed further in the matter. After completing investigation, the CBI filed the challan in the court of learned ACJM, SPE Cases, Jaipur, who by his order dated 26-8-94 committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District for the offence u/S. 304-B, IPC. On 8-9-94, accused Rajeev Joshi submitted a petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. read with S. 407, Cr. P.C. against the order dated 26-8-94 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., S.P.E. Cases, Jaipur, in this Court at Jodhpur, which was allowed by order dated 19-9-94. 2-A. I have heard Mr. D. S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. L. Thakur, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. L. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the accused non-petitioner No. 2 Rajeev Joshi and Mr. Kamal Dave standing counsel for the CBI at length and carefully perused the relevant record.

(3.) Mr. Shishodia has strenuously canvassed that the accused non-petitioner No. 2 did not implead the petitioner as a party in his S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 584/94 and suppressed material facts about the rejection of his bail applications u/S. 438 and 439, Cr. P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District and the High Court Bench at Jaipur and the fact that on the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, the investigation of the case was entrusted to the CBI and, as such, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. His another limb of the argument is that the State Government under S. 11(1)(A), Cr. P.C. by its notification dated 22-8-78 has established a court of ACJM, Jaipur District for conducting enquiry and trial in respect of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment having jurisdiction for whole of the Rajasthan and that under S. 14(3) of the Code, he did not commit any illegality in committing the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District.