HARIOM AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 8. 11. 2005 whereby, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran has taken cognizance of offences Baran has taken cognizance of offences against Chetan Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar and Praveen Kumar only in Cr. Case No. 279/2005 and has refused to take cognizance against Smt. Veena Jain, Smt. Asha Jain and Vipul, non-petitioners No. 2 to 4.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that a complaint came to be filed by the petitioner against non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 and Chetan Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar and Praveen Kumar for offences under Sections 342, 353, 392, 324, 504 and 120-B I. P. C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran who forwarded it under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to Police Station Kotwali Baran for investigation. THE police registered a case F. I. R. No. 59/2005 and after investigation submitted negative final report. THE petitioner filed protest petition before the court whereupon, statement of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. THE learned Court again sent the record to the S. H. O. Kotwali Baran for further investigation but without making further investigation again negative final report was submitted. THE learned court below took cognizance of the offences under Sections 342 and 323/34 I. P. C. vide order dated 8. 11. 2005 only against three accused persons namely; Chetan Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar and Praveen Kumar and declined to take cognizance of the offences against non-petitioners No. 2 to 4.

(3.) INDEED, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Magistrate was required to apply its mind to the facts of the case and to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof. The learned court below has rightly applied its mind to the facts and evidence on record in coming to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material to take cognizance of the offences against non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 whereas, there is sufficient material for taking cognizance against three accused persons namely; Chetan Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar and Praveen Kumar against whom cognizance of the offences has been taken. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 should have also been arrayed as accused in the case, does not have any cogent and legal basis in view of the evidence that has come on record. The order of the learned court below cannot be found fault with in this respect.