BHARAT LAL URF BHARTO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) The instant misc. petition and revision petition arise out of common proceedings in the trial court and are hence, being decided together.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the respondent-complainant Vedram lodged an FIR No. 267/2010 at the Police Station Deeg against the accused petitioners for the offences under Ss. 498A, 302, 304B IPC. The investigating officer, after conducting investigation of the matter, submitted a negative final report in the Court of the learned ACJM, Deeg. The learned trial court, heard the complainant and proceeded to accept the negative final report by order dtd. 11/4/2011. The complainant Vedram assailed the said order by filing a revision without impleading the proposed accused as party therein. The learned Additional Session Judge No. 1, Deeg, decided the revision by order dtd. 7/6/2011 and without providing opportunity of hearing to the accused, remanded the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh order on the negative final report after hearing the complainant. The learned trial court, upon remand, took cognizance against the accused by order dtd. 14/7/2011. The accused unsuccessfully challenged the said order dtd. 14/7/2011 by way of revision which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur by order dtd. 6/9/2011. The accused-petitioners have assailed both these sets of proceedings by filing Revision No. 815/2011 and Misc. Petition No. 3415/2011.