Bhagirath vs Kana Ram and Another

G.B. Pattanaik and R.P. Sethi, JJ.—Accused is the Appellant before us against an order of the learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court dated 6.11.1997 directing that the cognizance should be taken for the offence committed u/s 307, I.P.C., which was passed even without hearing the accused.

It transpires from the records of this case that against the order of the Magistrate not taking cognizance u/s 307, I.P.C., the State of Rajasthan had moved the High Court in Crl. M. P. No. 184 of 1996 and that application was dismissed by order dated 21.11.1996, on coming to the conclusion that the Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any prima facie evidence to show that a case u/s 307, I.P.C. was made out.

We fail to understand, after the aforesaid order, without even noticing the accused, how the High Court could pass the impugned order directing the Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 307, I.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are quashing the impugned order of the High Court since the same has been passed without even hearing the accused, and remit the matter to the High Court for redisposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The learned Chief Justice is requested to place this matter before a learned Judge other than the Judge who had passed the impugned order dated 6.11.1997.

The criminal appeal stands disposed of accordingly.