Raghuveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2015 passed by learned Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in sessions case no. 23/2013 whereby he has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for making the accused.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Kuldeep Singh lodged the FIR under Sections. 323, 341, 325 and 308 IPC against the accused respondent Nos. 2 to 4 at PS. Malakheda, Tehsil & Distt. Alwar on the ground that his grand father is living in our field with my grand mother and they caretaker of my field, on 3.7.2013 at about 11.00 AM on the direction of Delhi Police Inspector Rajendra Singh, his younger brothers Bijendra Singh, Jogendra and Ravindra Singh @ Ravi son of Rajendra Singh came on my field and started to cultivate and ploughing the field, when they were encroaching our field, that time my grand father raised the objection and want to stop the accused persons, thereafter they attacked on my grand father by lethal weapon and caused the injuries to him, four ribs broke down to victim by accused persons, when my grand father calling the phone for our safety, at that time, they snatched pen, diary and 360 rupees from the pocket of victim and goggle throw in the field, thereafter he shouted for our safety, that time my grand mother and other persons came for safety and they saved to victim. Thereafter all the accused persons ran away from the place of incident. Upon hearing the incident, I came on the spot, then whole story was told to me by my grand father in this case. On this allegation, complainant lodged the FIR against accused petitioner.

During the course of investigation, case was registered, but concerned police was not undertaking fair investigation, therefore, the complainant Kuldeep Singh filed SB Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 2778/2013 before this court wherein four affidavits of Kuldeep Singh, Rajendra Singh, Raghuveer Singh and Smt. Nawal Bai were filled stating therein that investigating officer is not recording statements of witnesses correctly. This court was pleased to pass the order dated 14.8.2013 in presence of IO Prabhudayal, ASI and directed him to record the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet under Section 323, 34t, 325 and 308 IPC against only Bijendra Singh and left other accused persons i.e. Rajendra Singh, Jogendra Singh and Ravindra Singh @ Ravi in spite of ample evidence against them. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge where the petitioner filed the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused persons. The learned court below vide order dated 10.7.2014 dismissed the application.

Against the said order dated 10.7.2014, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before this court, whereby this court vide order dated 24.4.2015 set aside the order of court below dated 10.7.2014 and remanded back the matter to the court below with a direction to decide the application under Section 193 Cr.RC. afresh.

After passing of said order dated 24.4.2015 by this court, the court below heard the arguments on the application filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and later on dismissed the application vide order dated 7.7.2015. Hence this revision petition has been filed.

Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Adv assisted with Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while deciding the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C., the court below has not considered his arguments and objections which he has raised at that time, as also, the court below has also not considered and decided the application in the light of judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and anr. (2013 CR.IR. (SC) 818), relevant head-note of which reads as under:

"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sec. 193- Cognizance u/S. 193 Cr.P.C.-Sessions Judge whether can issue summons as a court of original jurisdiction or he has to wait till the stage u/S. 319 Cr.P.C.-Cognizance against the persons not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet-ln the instant case Magistrate took the cognizance under Section 190 Cr. PC. in a case triable by Sessions Court and order upheld up to the High Court-On committal of the case Sessions Judge was entitled to issue summons-After commital of the case to the court of Sessions by the Magistrate, the court of session assumes original jurisdiction-Held, view expressed in Kishan Singh''s case is correct and the session Court has jurisdiction on committal of a case to take cognizance of the offence against the persons not named as offenders."

Thus, it has been requested that this petition should be disposed of by remanding the matter to the concerned court below with the direction to the court below to hear the parties on the grounds and objections which have been raised in this petition as also in the light of aforesaid judgment in the case of Dharam Pal (supra) or any other judgments to be cited by them, or on the material available on record and to be brought on record, and thereafter only pass the order afresh in accordance with law.

Learned Public Prosecutors has opposed the same.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that if impugned order dated 7.7.2015 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the concerned court below, in such circumstance, he should also be permitted to raise all the objections and grounds as also judgments before the court below.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 7.7.2015.

In view of above, the revision petition is disposed of, and the impugned order dated 7.7.2015 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned court below with the direction to hear the parties on the grounds and objections which have been raised in this petition by both the parties, or to be raised at the time of final hearing, or on the material available on record, and in the light of judgment rendered in Dharampal (supra) and other relevant judgments to be cited by both the parties, and thereafter only, pass the order afresh in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the aforementioned court on 19.12.2015.

Stay application also stands disposed of.