Petitioners challenged the Magistrate's cognizance order under Sections 323/34 IPC taken despite a negative final report, after their revision petition was dismissed. The High Court found both courts below had considered all material and dismissed the Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition.
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. 3786/2016
R/o Nagla Kumaha (Panghore), Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurodh Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
06/02/2024
The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners herein challenging the order dated 30.05.2016 passed by Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Bharatpur, in Revision No.20/2015 whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the revision petition, preferred by the petitioners herein and confirmed the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.290/11 taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323/34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that false FIR was lodged against the petitioners by the complainant wherein,
[CRLMP-3786/2016]
(2 of 3)
after thorough investigation, a negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that learned trial Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance against the petitioners as there is no incriminating material available on record so as to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the material collected by the Investigating Agency has not been taken into consideration while passing the order taking cognizance against the petitioners. He also contends that the revisional court also did not consider the material available on record in right perspective and simply upheld the order passed by the Magistrate court and dismissed the revision petition.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently submit that both the courts below have not committed any error and they have passed the order after examining the entire material on record. It is also contended that this petition is not maintainable as it is a second revision in the garb of Section 482 Cr.PC.
Considering the arguments advanced at bar and from bare perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, it appears that after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material placed by the Investigating Agency along with final report, the order dated 15.05.2015 was passed. At initial stage, when cognizance was taken by the magistrate vide order dated 26.04.2010, a revision petition was preferred by the accused-petitioners and same was decided vide order dated 19.06.2013 and the impugned order dated 26.04.2010 was
[CRLMP-3786/2016]
(3 of 3)
partially set aside and the learned trial Magistrate was directed to pass fresh order after hearing both the parties. From bare perusal of the order taking cognizance dated 15.05.2015, it appears that the same has been passed after considering the entire material and final police report.
In my considered opinion, prima facie, case is made out against the petitioners. The provisions of Section 468 Cr.PC was also taken into consideration and it was held that period of limitation shall be commenced from the date of offence and not from the date of order-sheet drawn by the Magistrate. Learned revision court also considered the entire material while passing the order dated 30.05.2016. In these circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order as both the courts below have passed the order after considering the entire material including the material placed by the investigating Agency.
Accordingly, this misc. petition as well as stay application are dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
ANAND TANWAR /337
2 issues framed by the court
Should the order taking cognizance under Sections 323/34 IPC despite a negative final report be upheld?
Is a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition against cognizance orders maintainable as a second revision?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhupendra S/o Shri Latoor
Yadhuveer S/o Shri Ghatoli
State of Rajasthan
Raniya W/o Shyamveer
Anil Kumar Upman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
