MUNSHI KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Complainant Kadu submitted a complaint against petitioner Munshi Khan, Gaffar, Nasru and some other unknown persons in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B Penal Code which was sent to police station Gangapur City under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. for investigation. After investigation the police submitted a negative final report. Feeling aggrieved by the negative Final Report, the complainant filed a protest petition. On the protest petition statement of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C. were recorded. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,Gangapur City vide order dated 15.5.2001 took cognizance against the petitioner Munsihi Khan, Gaffar and Nasru under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B Penal Code and summoned the accused. However, the petitioner Munshi Khan could not appear before the trial court. It seems that on 20.6.2008 the trial court considered the matter for framing of charge and the trial court after hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record discharged the two co-accused persons Gaffar and Nasru of the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B Penal Code but no order was passed in respect of the petitioner as he was absconding. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order declaring him absconder in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City came to be dismissed vide order 2.1.2009 treating the revision petition as time barred. The petitioner has moved this petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned revisional court as well as for his discharge as on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution,no case can be said to be made out against him.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and perusd the orders passed by the courts below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during trial of the case statements of the three proseuction witnesses were recorded and on the basis of the statements recorded, no case is made out against the petitioner also. Referring to the observations made by the trial court in its order dated 20.6.2008 discharging the co-accused persons, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner and as such, he also deserves to be discharged. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the trial court has come to the conclusion that against the petitioner also no case can be said to be made out but the trial court has not discharged the petitioner only on the ground that he was absconding. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is living at Mumbai and had no knowledge about the order of taking cognizance and as soon as he returned to his village he came to know about the order of taking cognizance and the order of discharge. On the strength on the above submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner also deserves to be discharged and the criminal proceedings pending against him be quashed.