Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sunita vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:31276) on 16 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:31276]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 888/2008
Sunita W/o Shri Subhash, aged about 20 years, resident of
Mundariya Bada, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Bhadar Ram S/o Jetha Ram,
3. Pratap S/o Hanuman
Both resident of Mundariya Bada, Tehsil Bhadra District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
For Complainant(s) Mr. J.K. Suthar, for
Mr. R.S. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/07/2025
1. The petitioner happens to be complainant of a criminal case,
who set the legal machinery in motion by lodging an FIR
No.130/2006 at Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh for
committing the offence under Sections 452, 323, 336, 427, 382 &
143 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged against five persons. In the
FIR and in the statement of the prosecution witnesses name of
four persons were shown as culprit of committing offence of
housebreaking, causing injuries, mischief and being part of an
unlawful assembly. However, the charge-sheet came to be filed
only against three accused persons, namely i.e. Dharmpal,
Mahendra and Hanuman. Why the other two persons were
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31276] (2 of 4) [CRLR-888/2008]
absolved or exonerated was not endorsed in the final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioner
moved an application under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. averring
therein to implead the two respondents, namely Bhadar Ram and
Pratap also as an accused. After hearing the learned counsel for
the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor, the learned ACJM,
Bhadra, passed an order of cognizance against five persons vide
order dated 21.07.2006. Three of which were charge-sheeted and
two were booked by the learned Magistrate through the order
impugned.
2. Aggrieved by the above order, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3
moved a revision petition bearing Revision Petition No.48/2006.
The learned Court of revision allowed the petition and set asided
the order taking cognizance. The said order is under assail before
this Court moved at the behest of the complainant.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. At the outset, it is stated at Bar that respondent No.2 –
Bhadar Ram has passed away. The above fact has been verified;
thus, the proceedings against respondent No.2 – Bhadar Ram is
be dropped hereby as abated.
5. After minutely going through the niceties of the matter and
applying the required mind to take cognizance of the offence, it is
found that the names of the two persons Bhadar Ram and Pratap
was very much available in the FIR and there are allegations
against them. The complainant and some of the witnesses
corroborated the same fact.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31276] (3 of 4) [CRLR-888/2008]
6. I have also gone through the report under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C., whereby these two persons were exonerated; however,
found nothing, based on which the Investigating Officer had
exonerated the two accused. The same thing was noticed by the
learned Magistrate.
7. Admittedly, no logic has been given by the Investigating
Officer as to why when the offence was proved against three
accused persons since the incident was genuine and how these
two persons were separated. It seems that the learned Court of
revision has relied upon some defence evidence. It is well nigh
settled principle of law that the probative value of defence cannot
be seen at the stage of taking cognizance. Cognizance would
mean, formal application of mind in a criminal matter to proceed
further. Neither it fixes any culpability on the accused nor any
meticulous appreciation of evidence is required. Setting aside an
order of cognizance based on the defence evidence is neither
desirable nor permissible under law. This Court feels that the
learned Court of revision has exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in
allowing the revision petition. There is a force in the instant
revision petition, thus, deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.
9. The order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Criminal
Revision Petition No.48/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
order passed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated
21.07.2006 is affirmed. The respondent No.2 – Bhadar Ram has
passed away, therefore, the respondent No.3 – Pratap S/o
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31276] (4 of 4) [CRLR-888/2008]
Hanuman is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on or
before 29.08.2025 and to move a regular bail application.
10. Upon doing so, the learned Judge shall release him on bail on
the same day, on such surety and bond amount as he deem
appropriate. It is expected that the learned trial Court shall
expedite the judicial proceedings.
11. With these observations, the revision petition stands
disposed of.
12. All pending applications are also disposed of.
13. Let the record be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
136-Ravi Khandelwal
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:21:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link