Bhagwat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3597 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 56/2022

Bhagwat Singh son of Shri Kalyan Singh, aged about 62 years, resident of Bawatra, Tehsil Sayla, Police Station Sayla, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan.

2. Lukaram s/o Shri Poonamaji, b/c Meghwal, r/o Mangalwa, at present residing at Alwada, P.S. Sayla, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

                                                   ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. B.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv.
                                assisted by Mr. Praveen Vyas
                                Mr. Gaurav Singh PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

09/03/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised

to refrain from coming to Courts.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Revision Petition may kindly be allowed and order of taking cognizance dated 14.12.2021 the quashed and set aside and in alternative it is also prayed that the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner may kindly be converted into bailable warrant."

3. The issue in the present case is limited to the extent that an

application was preferred by the respondent no. 2-Lukaram under

Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore in Sessions Case No.

(2 of 4)

145/2019 (C.I.S. No.95/18), which was allowed and cognizance

was taken against the petitioner under Sections 147, 365, 342,

323, 302/120B of IPC and Sections 3(2) (va), 3 (2) (v) of the SC/

ST Act and a warrant of arrest was also issued against the

petitioner, aggrieved whereby, the present petition has been

preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited

submission that the final report qua the petitioner, so submitted

by the police after completing the investigation, in relation to the

aforementioned offences in question, did not find the petitioner to

be involved in the crime in question, and therefore, his name was

not included in the charge sheet so drawn up. And that, despite

there being no material on record, nor availability of any evidence

before the learned court below connecting the present petitioner

with the crime in question, the learned court below arrayed the

petitioner as an accused in this case and issued a warrant of

arrest against him, while accepting the application preferred by

the respondent no. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this

Court towards the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Sarabjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2009)

16 SCC 46, wherein it was observed as under:

" The extent of the power of a Sessions Judge to summon persons other than the accused to stand trial in a pending case came up for consideration before this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rastogi MANU/SC/0094/1982 : 1983CriLJ159 . Therein, this Court while holding that the provision confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the court added "this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and

(3 of 4)

only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. The observation of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) and other decisions following the same is that mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction. Whether a higher standard be set up for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is the question. The answer to these questions should be rendered in the affirmative. Unless a higher standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof, viz., (i) an extraordinary case and (ii) a case for sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, would not be satisfied."

6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondent No.1-State as well as Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Mr. Praveen Vyas appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 oppose the aforesaid submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits

that the learned court below, after making a detailed consideration

of the factual matrix of the present case, has passed the

impugned order, while finding availability of sufficient evidence on

record and assigning detailed reasoning, before arraying the

present petitioner as accused in this case.

8. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of case and the judgment cited at the Bar.

(4 of 4)

9. This Court observes that the impugned order passed by the

learned court below is a detailed and well reasoned speaking

order. The learned court below, while passing the impugned order

on the application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., has recorded

its findings to the effect that there was a clear eye-witness

testimony in regard to presence of the accused petitioner on the

crime scene at the relevant time, and that on multiple occasions

he had threatened the respondent No.2 and hurled caste-based

abuses against him. Furthermore, the learned court below has

only arrayed the present petitioner as accused in the case before

it; however, the final culpability, if any, of the accused petitioner

will be adjudicated upon at the stage of final hearing during the

trial.

10. This Court, taking into consideration the judgment rendered

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarabjit Singh (supra), finds that

the legislative intent and object of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is duly

satisfied in the present case, and the impugned order arraying the

petitioner as an accused in this case is based on compelling

reasoning and logic, and thus, prima facie a clear case of taking

cognizance against the accused petitioner is made out.

11. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not

find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the

learned court below so as to warrant any interference therein.

12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 107-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)