RICHHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the order Dt/-. 20-5-98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, Churu, by which he took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences u/Ss. 147, 323 IPC in Complaint Case No. 500/96 (F.R.No. 82/1994). The facts which are relevant for deciding this petition briefly stated are that respondent No. 2 (Moti Singh s/o Sh. Raghunath Singh r/o Sujangarh District Churu filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, on 3-1-94 with the allegation that on 23-12-93 at about 8 PM, his elder brother Vishal Singh and Madan Singh were standing near the shop of Inder Singh accused petitioner No. 4 in the case, where all the accused petitioners were present. The accused petitioners, who had assembled at the shop of accused Inder Singh asked Madan Singh to come out and after he came out of the shop, Inder Singh asked Madan Singh about the borrowed money of the shop. One Richpal Singh also came out of the shop and inflicted a lathi blow to Madan Singh. Madan Singh tried to escape but he was overpowered by petitioners Fateh Singh, Mool Singh and Madan Singh where Inder Singh gave a lathi blow on his shoulder. Thereafter, the accused made good their escape from the place of the occurrence. The F.I.R. of the above incident was lodged with Police Station, Salasar, on 3-1-94 which was registered as FIR No. 8/94 for the commission of offences u/Ss. 147, 148, 342, 323 and 504 IPC and the police started investigation. After completion of investigation, the F.I.R. was submitted by the police on 31-3-94 with the finding that since no such incident had taken place, the case be treated as closed and the report in negative was accordingly submitted with the concerned Court on 31-1-94. Thereafter, a protest petition was filed by the complainant with the trial Court to give a direction for re-investigating the matter on 15-6-95. When the trial Court took cognizance of the matter against the accused, the criminal misc. petition was moved under Section 482 Cr PC before this Court bearing No. 692/97 wherein this Court passed an order on 26-11-97 to the following effect :

(2.) In view of the above directions of the Court, the proper and legitimate course for the petitioner was to face the trial before the trial Court for the offences alleged against them u/Ss. 147 and 323 IPC. If the accused had co-operated with the trial Court, the hearing would have been expedited and they would have been given adequate opportunities to defend themselves by cross examining the witnesses and also to lead evidence in defence but instead of adopting that recourse, they have again

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and examined the relevant provisions of law as referred to above and also the maintainability of the impugned order dated 20-5-98 passed by the trial Court by which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences u/Ss. 147 and 323 IPC. Prima facie I am of the considered view that the bar of limitation is not attracted to this case since as and when the first order was passed by the trial Court with regard to taking cognizance against the accused, all these objections had been raised earlier before this Court and which culminated in the order dt. 26-11-97 passed by this Court earlier in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 692/97 as aforesaid. This Court after taking stock of the situation had set aside the impugned order dated 16-11-96 and remanded back the case to the learned Magistrate with a direction to proceed in accordance with Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further observed that the provisions of limitation provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure shall also be kept in view. This however does not imply that the cognizance was time barred after the fresh order dt. 20-5-98 has been passed by the learned magistrate since once the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court with the aforesaid directions, the whole process has to start afresh in the matter and the accused are duty bound to face the trial in accordance with law. In this manner, if petitions are presented time and again before this Court on one pretext or the other, not only the valuable time of this Court is wasted but also the accused intend to suffer as a result of the delay in not participating and assisting in the fair trial of the case, which would be defeating the ends of justice instead of serving the same. In my view, the learned Magistrate pursuant to the order of remand dt. 26-11-97, has very rightly proceeded with the recording of statements of witnesses adduced the complainant under Ss. 200 and 202 Cr PC and thereafter the cognizance of the offences has been taken against the accused u/Ss. 147 and 323 IPC.