SITA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 21. 1. 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dausa in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40/2005 whereby the revision petition of the accused petitioner against the order dated 23. 3. 2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui has been allowed.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner made a report at Police Station Bandikui against accused respondents and the co- accused persons. An FIR being No. 462/2003 came to be registered on its basis for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 341 and 325 I. P. C. After investigation challan was filled against co- accused persons viz. Om Prakash, Munni Devi, Manohar Lal and Mukesh under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 325 I. P. C. No challan was filed against Davendra and Naval. After recording of the statements of seven witnesses, the learned APP filed an application under Section319 Cr. P. C. In reply, the accused non- petitioners submitted that co-accused persons have been wrongly implicated. THEir involvement in the alleged offences is not proved from the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. THEre are serious contradictions in the statements regarding their involvement in the occurrence. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate accepted the application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. and by his order dated 23. 3. 2005 took cognizance against non-petitioners Davendra and Naval non- petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 filed a revision which came to be decided by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bandikui by his order dated 21. 1. 2006. THE revision was allowed and the order passed by the learned court below dated 23. 3. 2005 was quashed. Hence, this petition by the petitioner-complainant.

(3.) LEARNED PP for the State has supported the case of the complainant-petitioner. However, learned counsel for non- petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 has seriously contested the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the names of these accused persons are not corroborated by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and there are glaring contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their police statements.