REKHARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. has been preferred against the order dated 21st June, '88, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, City, Jaipur, in a revision petition, whereby he has held that a revision does not lie against aninterlocutory order. The Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur passed an order taking conizance against the petitioner on 15th July, '86 and that order was challenged in revision. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated 21st June,'88.

(2.) TO understand the controversy, some fact of the case may be mentioned here briefly. One Ram Kishan lodged a report at P. S. Shastri Nagar on 20th March, 1982 in the night at 12. 45 AM alleging that on that night at about 11pm, when he returned to his house and was closing its outer door, 8-10 persons, after breaking the wall, entered into his house and started beating him. He was dragged out of the house, and when he was tried to be rescued by his family members, he, somehow or other, released from their clutches and ran away to the upper story of the house. Rekharam followed him and gave him a stone-blow on his head and Hanuman and Jagdish were also beaten up. The informant named 7 persons in his complaint, and apart from them, some 10-12 persons were also there in that beating. On this complaint, a case u/ss. 147, 452, 323 & 336, IPC, was registered; and after completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons. But, no challan was submitted against Rekharam accused. During trial, the trial court recorded statements of 4 witnesses. In their statements. Ramkishan PW 1. Ratandevi PW 3 and Laxmi Devi PW 4, implicated Rekharam also. After recording of statements of these witnesses, the complainant moved an application in the trial court u/s. 319, Cr. P. C, implicating petitioner Rekharam as one of the accused. The learned trial court after hearing on the application, passed order on 15th July,'86, and took cognizance against Rekharam, and he was summoned. Aggrieved by that order, Rekharam preferred a revision petition, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 21st June, '88, rejected the said revision petition holding that the order of the learned Magistrate date 15th July, '88, is an interlocutory order, and so, no revision lies against that order.

(3.) MR. Rathore based his argument on the case of Krutibasa Panda vs. State of Orissa (2 ). The facts of that case were similar to the present case. In that case also, a FIR was lodged, where in certain persons were implicated in the commission of the offence. After recording evidence in that case, on an application u/s. 319, Cr. P. C, the learned Magistrate granted the application and took cognizance against certain persons. They challenged that order. And, the learned Judge of the Orissa High Court, observed as under: "in view of the evidence of PW s. 3, 4 & 5 making allegations against the petitioners and also in view of the fact that in. the first information report, itself, petitioners were implicated with the occurrence, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has arbitrarily exercised his power under S. 319, Cr. P. C. It is a wellknown principle of criminal jurisprudence that cognizance of an offence is taken and offenders are tried when it is brought to the notice of the court that they are involved in the offence. In view of the allegations in the FIR, it cannot be said that the evidence of PWs. 3, 4 & 5 was an afterthought and the entire case is a concoction. At any rate, that would be a matter to be decided in the trial itself. In view of the admitted position that PWs. 3, 4 & 5 had deposed to the effect that petitioners were involved in the offence, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with by this Court, at this stage. I, therefore, find no merits in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 3rd Oct. , '83 passed in this revision is vacated and the learned Magistrate is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. "