LAWS(RAJ)-2016-9-264

FELIRAM S/O KISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 07, 2016
Feliram S/O Kishanlal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 16.07.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, District Dausa (for short 'the trial court'), whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed, be set aside.

(2.) It is contended that a complaint was filed by Nahnuram S/o Kishanlal before the trial court against the petitioner and other persons, on the basis of which FIR No. 424/2012 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dausa on 13.08.2012 for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The police, after investigation, filed negative final report before the trial court. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed protest petition, upon which, the trial court vide its order dated 09.01.2013 directed IO/SHO to investigate the matter on point No. 1, 2, 3 and 7 which were raised in the protest petition. The police again filed report before the trial court. The complainant being aggrieved filed protest petition on 02.04.2013 before the trial court. The trial court vide order dated 10.05.2013 directed Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned to investigate the matter in pursuance of order dated 09.01.2013 passed earlier and file detailed report within one month. Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a detailed investigation report before the trial court on 31.01.2014 which was followed by clear and final report before the court concerned. The trial court took cognizance vide order dated 21.02.2015 against the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant. The petitioner filed application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for converting non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant, but the trial court vide impugned order dated 16.07.2016 dismissed the application of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is 83 years old person and ready to cooperate in trial. Therefore, there is no necessity to call him through arrest warrant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment dated 09.10.2007 delivered by the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others.