DHOORI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is well settled that in a case triable by Court of Session, a Magistrate cannot summon and commit a person, not named in the charge-sheet, under S. 319, Cr. P.C. to stand trial along side the accused. Admittedly, after usual investigation the Police Station Bissau submitted charge-sheet against accused Suresh for committing offences under Ss. 498A, 302 and 304-B, I.P.C. The petitioners-Dhoori, Ramavtar and Anchi were not named in the charge-sheet. The ACJM Jhunjhunu vide order dated 6th Jan., 1996 took cognizance against the accused Suresh as well as against the petitioners-Dhoori, Ramavtar and Anchi under Ss. 498A, 302, 304B and 34, I.P.C. The accused persons assailed the said order by preferring proceedings under S. 482, Cr. P.C. before this Court bearing S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 96/1996. This Court disposed of the said petition vide order dated Feb. 2, 1996 stating that the question as to whether prima facie case against the accused persons is made out or not will be seen by the learned Sessions Judge at the time of hearing of arguments on charges. In the meanwhile the case was committed by the learned ACJM Jhunjhunu to the Court of Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu. An application was moved on March 11, 1997 by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on the ground that cognizance could not have been taken by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order rejected the application. Against this order that the present action for filing the miscellaneous petition has been resorted to by the petitioners.

(3.) I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned order.