HANUMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this revision petition, the petitioners call in question the order dt. 13. 5. 98 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padampur whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners on protest petition filed by the complainant u/ss. 302, 307, 323, 379, 325, 341, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and summoned them through warrants of arrest.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these. On 22. 12. 97 the police recorded a statement of Chuni Ram in he Government Dispensary, Dhumarwali in which he stated that Hanumnram, Bhoopram, Inderkumar, Sravan, Kashi Ram and one more person having guns and lathis in their hands caused injuries to him and his son Hetram. On this statement, a case u/ss. 147, 148, 307, 336 and 149 IPC and 27 Arms Act was registered. During the course of investigation Hetram expired therefore, Sec. 302 IPC was added. THE police after the completion of the investigation submitted a challan against Inder Kumar and Bhoopram observing that the three other persons had not taken part in the occurrence. Chuniram, complainant filed a protest petition on 28. 3. 98. THE learned Magistrate vide order dt. 13. 5. 1998 took cognizance against Sravan, Hanuman and Kashiram u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 379, 325, 341 IPC and u/ss. 147, 148 and 149 IPC against Inder Kumar and Bhoopram and issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners.

(3.) IN the instant case, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the evidence recorded during investigation. IN view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad (supra) the impugned or-der is not sustainable.