Chhog Singh And Ors vs State And Anr

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: -

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present criminal misc. petition and impugned order dated 27.01.2016 passed by learned Session Judge, Jalore, and the order dated 11.10.2001 passed by learned ACJM, Jalore, taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 326/149 of IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, are that on 04.08.1999, the complainant/respondent no.2 submitted a complaint before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore alleging therein that on 30.07.1999, he along with Mod Singh, Achal Singh, Sohan Singh, Jabar Singh, Guman Singh, Narpat Singh, Peer Singh, Jai Singh, and Madan Singh were sitting in their office in Bhuti village. At that time, the accused-petitioners came to the office of complainant/respondent no.2 with sword, Dharia and Lathis and starting abusing and caused sword injury to complainant/respondent no. 2 and other persons. And that, as per the impugned order dated 11.10.2001, during the incident, Jai Singh S/o Jog Singh died. And that one of the person Jabar Singh brought the jeep and took away, all injured to Valdara and thereafter, they were taken away to Jodhpur through Pali, and admitted in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur.

2.1. Thereafter, the complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Ahore under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, upon which a case FIR, bearing no. 179/1999 was registered under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 324, 148, 149, and 458 IPC and investigation commenced. Thereafter police submitted Final Report No. 71/2000 and stated that one more incident has happened between the same parties and in connection therewith FIR bearing no. 174/1999 was registered at Police Station, Ahore.

2.2. Thereafter learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore took cognizance vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2001 against the accused-petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324/149, 326/149 of IPC. Thereafter the accused-petitioners filed revision petition no. 63/2013 against the cognizance order of learned ACJM, Jalore. The learned Session Judge, Jalore vide order dated 27.01.2016 dismissed the revision petition, while upholding the cognizance order..

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court while taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners has not considered the material collected by the investigating agency in totality, as the major part of the allegation of the prosecution has been disbelieved by the learned court below, in view of the fact that the cognizance has not been taken under Sections 302 & 458 IPC. He thus submitted that there was no justification in proceeding against the petitioners, for offences under Sections 324/149 and 326/149 of IPC.

On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences placed on record before it, to the extent necessary at the stage of the cognizance.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

This Court finds that at the stage of cognizance, the learned court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290.

At the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused is made out. And that the facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the cognizance can be taken against the accused.

Thus, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record, this Court does find that a case is made out so as to warrant interference in the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below.

Resultantly, the present petition fails, and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.