Chalakdan Charan vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

. Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 12.02.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision Petition No.23/2015. The revisional court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 01.11.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Osiyan, in Criminal Case No.22/2009. The learned Magistrate rejected the negative final report of the prosecution, instead took cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC on a protest petition and then directly issued arrest warrant against the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2, Gomad Ram, submitted a complaint under section 156 of the Cr.P.C. before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Osiyan, in the year 2009. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Osiyan, sent the complaint to the S.H.O. of Police Station Lohawat under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register the case, investigate the matter, and submit a report. Pursuant to this, the S.H.O. of Police Station Lohawat registered a case as C.R. Case No. 06/2009 for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC and initiated the investigation. After a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report. Aggrieved by this, the complainant submitted a protest petition. Vide order dated 01.11.2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioner for offenses under sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District. By an order dated 12.02.2019, revisional court upheld the order dated 01.11.2011 and dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition.

Heard.

Ordinarily, this Court would have refrained from interfering at this belated stage, given that the arrest warrant was issued in 2011 and that the petitioner subsequently took steps, albeit unsuccessfully, to challenge it by way of a revision petition, which was also dismissed in 2019. However, upon the Court's query, it transpires that the petitioner is a 72-year-old senior citizen and a retired soldier from the Indian Army, currently living a retired life in a remote village. After the dismissal of the revision petition in year 2019, the courts were working under restrictions due to the global pandemic. Upon the resumption of court operations, the petitioner was advised that a fresh notice would be issued, leading him to believe that he would appear once the fresh notice was served. However, no fresh notice was served on him. Consequently, he could not appear before the trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after thorough investigation previously culminated in a negative final report favoring the petitioner, which was rightly filed. Notwithstanding this, in response to a protest petition submitted by the complainant, the learned Magistrate, in most mechanical manner, took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC, issuing an arrest warrant against the petitioner forthwith. This action was taken without first issuing any court summons or bailable warrant, and without any indication that the petitioner could not be served through ordinary process.

Be that as it may, learned counsel states that he is under instructions for not press the prayer qua quashing of order impugned, but he seeks alternative relief by converting the Non-bailable warrant issued against petitioners in to bailable warrant.

Learned PP would support the impugned orders for the reasons stated therein.

I am of the view that matters of personal liberty ought not to be taken so mechanically as has been done by the learned trial court followed by revisional court. Summoning the petitioner without effecting service of summons or bailable warrants, by directly issuing arrest warrants on a protest petition does not stand to justification, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Consequently, the impugned orders dated 12.02.2019 and 01.11.2011 passed by the learned Revisional Court as well as learned Magistrate, are modified to the extent that the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner, to summon him for further proceedings, is converted into a bailable warrant. Trial to proceed further in accordance with law.

Disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.