Petitioners challenged a High Court order taking cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C. after the Magistrate committed the case without charging them. The High Court held the order was valid as materials were available and dismissed the revision.
S.B.C.R.P. No. 760/2017 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 2)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 760/2017
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondents : Mr. R.R. Gurjar, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
12/09/2017
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), challenging the order dated 28.4.2017, whereby, cognizance was taken by the trial court under Section 193 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, after thorough investigation of the case, challan was not presented against the petitioners. Magistrate committed the case of the co-accused to the Sessions Court for trial. The Sessions Judge vide the impugned order, took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
(2 of 2 )
Section 193 Cr.P.C. reads as under :-
"Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code."
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92 in Hardeep Singh V/S
State of Punjab & Ors. , wherein it was held as under:-
"In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused."
Learned trial court while taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners has noticed that as per the statement of the complainant, petitioners along with Ram Bhajan had come to his fields armed with sticks and axe and had started given beatings to him. It was the case of the complainant that petitioner no.1 Mohan Singh, had given an axe blow on his head whereas, petitioners no.2 and 3 had given sticks blows on his right arm and left foot. Other witnesses had also stated in their statements that the petitioners had also participated in the crime.
In these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for interference as it does not suffer by the vice of illegality.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/100
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge could take cognizance of an offence against petitioners under Section 193 Cr.P.C. after they were not named in the charge sheet but materials were available in the committed
Whether the order of cognizance suffers from any illegality under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh V/S State of Punjab & Ors.Explained¶21
(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92 in Hardeep Singh V/S State of Punjab & Ors.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Singh
Satveer
Hemant
State of Rajasthan Through PP
Vijendra
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
