Petitioner challenged the trial court's cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C. alleging incomplete investigation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the cognizance was proper as prima facie standards differ from final judgment standards.
No interference warranted; petition deemed devoid of merits.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5375/2017
Devendra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Order
01/05/2018
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 17.11.2016 whereby the trial Judge took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
The trial Judge proceeded on the premise that prosecutrix in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had named four persons namely Parveen, Sanjay, Ashok and Devender who performed the act of gang rape.
The trial Judge noted that Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet only against Sanjay and Ashok. On the basis of the same material there was no justification for the Investigating Officer not to submit charge-sheet against petitioner Devender and Parveen.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during pendency of the investigation qua the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. prosecutrix was examined in trial against co-
[CRLMP-5375/2017]
(2 of 2)
accused and she had not named the accused-petitioner. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the court is to be treated as another previous statement.
For taking cognizance of offence, test of prima facie is to be applied. A presumptive opinion is to be formulated. The standard to be applied at the time of taking cognizance and time of delivery of final judgment are entirely different, therefore, the cognizance has been rightly taken. Petitioner utmost if advised can confront the prosecutrix during the course of the trial with previous statement, which purportedly is in favour of the petitioner.
Hence, no interference is warranted and the present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J
Heena
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order taking cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C. when the investigation against some named persons was incomplete.
Whether the standard for taking cognizance of an offence differs from the standard applied in delivery of a final judgment.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Devendra
State Of Rajasthan
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
