SURJEET Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Sessions Judge), Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Special Sessions Case No. 7/2015, whereby the trial court has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. and summoned the petitioner for facing trial along with other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 376(2)(i)(j) and 323/34 IPC, Sec. 5(g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that name of the petitioner has not been figured in the FIR and in the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C., the prosecutrix has not alleged that the petitioner had committed rape upon her, however, in her statement, recorded under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C., for the first time the allegation of commission of rape was levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the police, after thorough investigation, has filed negative final report while concluding that the petitioner was not involved in commission of crime. Later on, the statements of prosecution were recorded before the trial court and on the basis of which, the prosecution has moved an application before the trial court under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. with a prayer for summoning the petitioner to face trial along with other co-accused persons. The trial court has allowed the said application and summoned the petitioner through warrant of arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to challenge the order of summoning the petitioner for facing the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376-D, 376(2)(i)(j) and 323/34 IPC, Sec. 5(g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with other co-accused persons. He prays that the order of summoning the petitioner through warrant of arrest may kindly be modified and the trial court may be directed to summon the petitioner through bailable warrant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarachal & Ors. reported in (2007) 12 SSC 1 and argued that as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the accused, against whom, charge-sheet has not been filed at the initial stage and later on cognizance has been taken by the criminal court, then ordinarily he should be summoned through bailable warrant unless circumstances require to summon him through warrant of arrest. It is submitted that the trial court has not given any specific reason for summoning the petitioner through warrant of arrest instead of bailable warrant.