ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ON a negative report of the police dated 5.5.1991, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Section 498A IPC in the present case and summoned the petitioners as accused thereof vide order dated 31.10.1991. The petitioner put in appearance in the court on 27.4.1993. The learned Magistrate, without complying and without following the requirements of Sections 207 and 238 Cr.P.C. framed the charges for the offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner. The charges so framed by the learned Magistrate were quashed by this court on petitioner's petition bearing S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 674/93, on 10.2.1995. This court sent the matter back to the learned Magistrate with the direction to first deliver the copies of the documents on the record of the police report to the petitioners and after hearing them for charge to pass appropriate orders. The learned Magistrate appears to have complied with such directions of this court and after hearing the parties framed the charge under Section 498A IPC against all the petitioners vide his impugned order dated 9.7.1996. It further appears that the petitioners had also moved an application under Section 177 Cr.P.C. on 3.8.1995 challenging the very jurisdiction of the trial court at Bundi to entertain and hear this petition. By this impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected and disposed of such application of the petitioners. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred whereby the initial order of taking cognizance dated 31.10.1991 as also the order dated 9.7.96 framing the charges against the petitioners have been challenged.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that by this petition, the petitioners have also challenged the very order of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 498 A IPC dated 31.10.1991 by the learned Magistrate and in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur v. Darsan Singh and others, 1996 RCC 592 the petition is maintainable.