SURESH KUMAR SAINI S/O BHAGWANA RAM SAINI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.1, CHURU(RAJ.). Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. to assail impugned order dated 12.04.2013 passed by Sessions Judge, Churu (for short, 'learned revisional Court') dismissing revision petition of the petitioner against order of cognizance passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu (for short, 'learned trial Court').

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner attributing offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. Learned trial Court, while resorting to sub-section(3) of Sec. 156 Crimial P.C. sent the matter for investigation. After investigation, Police submitted negative final report in the matter and thereupon, respondent-complainant lodged a protest petition under Sec. 190 Crimial P.C. The protest petition was considered by the learned trial Court and pursuant thereto statement of the complainant under Sec. 200 Crimial P.C. were also recorded. Later on, learned trial Court, upon consideration of the matter in entirety, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the learned revisional Court and the learned revisional Court, by the order impugned, declined to interfere with the order of cognizance.

(3.) Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the learned revisional Court has not at all cared to examine the order passed by the learned trial Court in right perspective. Learned counsel submits that the revisional jurisdiction, conferred on a Court under Sec. 397 Crimial P.C., presupposes that the Court is required to examine correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the trial Court but in the instant case, no such, endeavour is made by the learned revisional Court. Lastly learned counsel has urged that the order impugned is absolutely vague, cryptic and a nonspeaking order which cannot be sustained.