TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case Ram Narain complainant-respondent had submitted a written report against the petitioners and one Kishan Lal for their having committed the offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 451 and 323, IPC. On his report the police registered Crime No. 31/1987 and after investigation submitted a report u/S. 173, Cr. P.C. against Kishan Lal only. A negative report u/S. 169, Cr. P.C. had been submitted against the present petitioners. Ram Narain appears to have filed a complaint against the present petitioners and the aforesaid Kishan Lal. By that time the police report u/S. 173, Cr. P.C. had already been received on 24-4-87 against Kishan Lal aforesaid. The learned Magistrate, therefore, directed that the complaint filed by Ram Narain be put up with the police case. It appears that after having examined all the 7 material witnesses in the case the Public Prosecutor incharge of the police case moved an application u/S. 319, Cr. P.C. requiring the learned Magistrate to summon the present petitioners as co-accused in the case. Ram Narain complainant also moved a similar application on 11-2-1988. By his order dated 26-7-88 the learned Magistrate accepted the prayer of the Public Prosecutor and Ram Narain complainant and summoned the present petitioners as co-accused in the case to answer the charges for the offences u/Ss. 147, 323, 451 and 324, IPC. This order passed by the learned Magistrate appears to have been challenged by the present petitioners before this Court by way of a revision u/S. 397, Cr. P.C. The said petition appears to have been dismissed by the Court in default of prosecution by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed a petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. for recalling the order passed by this Court dismissing their petition u/S. 397, Cr. P.C. This Court disposed of their petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. with the observations that the petitioners would be entitled to raise the same objection before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thereupon heard the parties over the justification of his order dated 26-7-88 taking cognizance of the offences u/Ss. 147, 323, 451 and 324, IPC against the petitioners and summoning them as co-accused in the case. By his order dated 7-3-90 the learned Magistrate held that there were no sufficient grounds for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and summoning them as co-accused in the case. He accordingly dismissed prosecutor's and Ram Narain's application u/S. 319, Cr. P.C. and discharged the petitioners. The order so passed by the learned Magistrate on 7-3-90 was challenged in a revision petition filed before the learned Sessions Judge. By his impugned order dated 21-7-90 the learned Sessions Judge held that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to review or revise his earlier order dated 26-7-88. On the basis of the same evidence which had been considered good and sufficient by him for summoning the petitioners as co-accused in the case at an earlier occasion. Holding thus the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 7-3-90 and directed him to proceed further in the matter according to law. It is that order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 21-7-90 which is being challenged by the petitioners through this petition u/S. 397, Cr. P.C.

(2.) Mr. S. R. Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced three fold arguments. In the first place the learned counsel urged that the learned Sessions Judge erred in entertaining the petition u/S. 397, Cr. P.C. on the application of a private party. It was submitted that in a case instituted on police report a private party has no locus standi to invoke revisional`` jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions or this Court. In support of such contention Mr. Bajwa relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 911 : (1966 Cri LJ 700) and the decision of this Court in the case of Ganga Ram v. Prabhu Dayal 1987 Raj Cri C 81.

(3.) In case of Thankur Ram (1966 Cri LJ 700), the Apex Court has observed as under (at p. 706 of Cri LJ) :-