RAJ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF RAJ. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard

(2.) In this case Satish, informant had lodged a report with Police Station Chirawa alleging therein that on 21.1.95 at 9 A.M. the present petitioner alongwith three others namely Veer Bahadur, Smt. Man Kumari and Smt. Sudhira assaulted his old father Prahlad Singh and caused him fatal injuries which led to his death in the hospital on the same day. After having registered Crime No. 17/95 Under section 302/34, 323, 448 Penal Code against the petitioner and three others the police investigated the case but submitted Final Report No. 2/95 against all the accused persons. On having been given a notice by the learned Magistrate before accepting the F.R., as submitted by the police before him, Satish, the informant, filed a protest petition but after bearing him on such petition the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 31.8.96 accepted the FIR submitted by the police and rejected the protest petition filed by Satish. informant. However, the order of the learned Magistrate having been challenged before him by Satish informant, the learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu vide his impugned order dated 22.2.97 dismissed the petition as against Veer Bahadur, Smt. Man Kumari and Smt. Sudhira but accepted the same as against the present petitioner and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed further in the case against him.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge has expressed his mind to the effect that prima facie the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder had been committed by the petitioner, which he should not have done, and, therefore, there was no sense in his direction to the Magistrate to take further proceedings in the matter. The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, supported the order of the learned Sessions Judge.