Baljeet Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ''the revisional court''), whereby the revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners for want of jurisdiction and affirmed the order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court''), whereby the trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(G) IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences as no material was available against the petitioner for taking cognizance. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court has wrongly summoned the petitioners through arrest warrants and alternately it is prayed that the arrest warrants issued by the trial court may be converted into bailable warrants.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this criminal misc. petition and submitted that the trial court, after taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statements of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has rightly passed the order for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(G) IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and, therefore, no interference is called for.

Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners on 23.08.2014 but they did not appear before the trial court and the arrest warrants were issued to them, which have not been executed and the petitioners are absconding, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for converting the arrest warrant into bailable warrants is not liable to be entertained.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders.

The trial court, after taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses viz. Indra Devi and Sajjna Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has observed that the prosecutrix and other witnesses have clearly named the petitioners in their statements and from the said evidence, sufficient material is available on record to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(G) IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It is also true that the trial court has summoned the petitioners through arrest warrants vide order dated 23.08.2014 and till date, the same have not been executed, the petitioners are absconding and, therefore, in such circumstances the prayer of the petitioners for converting arrest warrants into bailable warrants is not liable to be entertained.

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.