Gujarat High Court
Reshmaben W/O Imranbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 31 August, 2021
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/SCR.A/10732/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 10732 of 2019
================================================================
RESHMABEN W/O IMRANBHAI MAMADBHAI DAL (SANDHI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RUCHIT J VYAS(10687) for the Applicant
MS FORUM J SHAH(10810) for the Applicant
. for the Respondent(s) No. 2
DHANESH R PATEL(8226) for the Respondent No. 2
MRS KRINA CALLA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 31/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. This Court has observed that Mr. Dhanesh Patel,
learned advocate is appearing for respondent No.2,
which has been shown through inadvertent error, in
fact, Mr. Dhanesh Patel is not appearing for
respondent No.2, so his name should be deleted.
2. Heard learned counsel Bhadrish Raju for the
petitioner and learned APP Mrs. Krina Calla for the
respondent State.
3. Placing reliance on the Constitutional Bench
judgment (Dharampal & others Vs. State of
Hariyana, AIR 2013 SC 3018), the learned counsel
would submit that, after filing the chargesheet in the
matter, the learned Magistrate, Savarkundla, Dist.:
R/SCR.A/10732/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2021
Amreli, committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
Amreli vide its order dated 14.08.2017, which has
been registered as Sessions Case No. 58 of 2016 and
therefore, Sessions Court having jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offences of the persons not named
as offenders. In these background facts, the learned
counsel would further submit that in view of the
directions and observations made by the
Constitutional Bench, the petition may be disposed of
with the liberty to agitate the issue before the
Sessions Court.
4. In case of Dharampal & others Vs. State of Hariyana
(supra), the Constitutional Bench has held that, after
committal order, the Sessions Court has jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the offences of the persons not
named as offenders but whose complicity in the case
would be evident from the materials on record and
the Sessions Court may issue summons under Section
193 on the basis of the records transmitted to the
Court as a result of committal order passed by the
Magistrate. The relevant extract of paras 28, 29, 30
and 31 read as under:
"28. In that view of the matter, we
have no hesitation in agreeing with
the views expressed in Kishun Singh's
case (supra) that the Session Courts
has jurisdiction on committal of a case
to it, to take cognizance of the
R/SCR.A/10732/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2021
offences of the persons not named as
offenders but whose complicity in the
case would be evident from the
materials available on record. Hence,
even without recording evidence,
upon committal under Section 209,
the Session Judge may summon those
persons shown in column 2 of the
police report to stand trial along with
those already named therein.
29. We are also unable to accept Mr.
Dave's submission that the Session
Court would have no alternative, but
to wait till the stage under Section
319 Cr.P.C. was reached, before
proceeding against the persons
against whom a prima facie case was
made out from the materials
contained in the case papers sent by
the learned Magistrate while
committing the case to the Court of
Session.
30. The Reference to the effect as to
whether the decision in Ranjit Singh's
case (supra) was correct or not in
Kishun Singh's case (supra), is
answered by holding that the decision
in Kishun Singh's case was the correct
decision and the learned Session
Judge, acting as a Court of original
jurisdiction, could issue summons
under Section 193 on the basis of the
records transmitted to him as a result
of the committal order passed by the
learned Magistrate.
31. Consequent upon our aforesaid
decision, the view taken by the
R/SCR.A/10732/2019 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2021
Referring Court is accepted and it is
held that the decision in the case of
Kishun Singh vs. State of Bihar and
not the decision in Ranjit Singh Vs.
State of Punjab lays down the law
correctly in respect of the powers of
the Session Court after committal of
the case to it by the learned
Magistrate under Section 209 Cr.P.C."
5. In light of the aforesaid law laid down by the
Constitutional Bench, the petitioner is at liberty to
approach the concerned Sessions Court where the
Sessions Case No. 58 of 2016 is pending. If any
application is filed by the petitioner, the Sessions
Court after following the procedure and decide the
same in accordance with law. It is made it clear that
this Court has not examined the merits of the matter.
6. In view of the aforesaid terms, the petition is
disposed of.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI
