VIVEK @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioners have laid this misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C., 1973 to assail impugned order dated 16.05.2016 and 22.02.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Pipar in criminal case No.937/2011.

(2.) By the order impugned, learned trial Court declined to accept negative final report submitted by investigating agency and proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sec. 341, 323, 354 of Penal Code and section 3(1) (x) SC/ST ACt. After passing the order of cognizance, the learned trial Court has issued non bailable warrant against the accused petitioners for securing their attendance before the Court. The order of cognizance was thereafter assailed by the petitioners by filing revision petition before the learned revisional Court but that effort of petitioners proved abortive and the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that he is craving for limited indulgence of the Court that the arrest warrant issued by learned trial Court may be converted into bailable warrant by resorting to sub-section (2) of Sec. 70 Crimial P.C., 1973 Learned counsel would contend that the cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court after rejecting the negative final report and therefore it was desirable that at the first instance learned trial Court ought to have issued summons or bailable warrant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttranchal and Ors. [AIR 2008 Sc 251].