Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balkaran Singh vs State on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 995/2019
1. Balkaran Singh S/o Sh. Harbansh Singh, Aged About 40
Years, Kewal Wali Dhani, Goluwala, Tehsil Pilibanga,
District Hanumangarh.
2. Jaswant Singh S/o Shri Vaishkha Singh, Aged About 35
Years, Kewal Wali Dhani, Goluwala, Tehsil Pilibanga,
District Hanumangarh.
3. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sardul Singh, Aged About 28
Years, Kewal Wali Dhani, Goluwala, Tehsil Pilibanga,
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through P.p.
2. Gurlal Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, By Caste Sikh, R/o
Gurusar Modiya, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gagandeep Mashal for
Mr.B.S.Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhati PP
Mr. S.R. Godara
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 16/05/2022
Pronounced on 25/05/2022
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners against
the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar,
whereby the learned court below, while allowing the application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. preferred by the prosecution, took
cognizance against the present accused-petitioners Jaswant Singh,
Manjeet Singhi and Balkaran Singh, as well as against other
persons, for the offences under Section 302, 120B/34 IPC.
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:16:03 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-995/2019]
However, the said application was preferred under Section 319
Cr.P.C. on 24.06.2019 for taking cognizance against the present
accused-petitioners only.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that
earlier, after due investigation into an FIR bearing No.74/2018 for
the offences under Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC (registered on
the basis of a written report submitted by the complainant), the
concerned investigating authority filed a charge-sheet for the
aforementioned offences against two persons, namely,
Ramandeep Singh and Bhinder Singh, while exonerating the
present accused-petitioners from the said offences.
2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that against such
exoneration of the present accused-petitioners, the complainant
filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed
by the learned Magistrate, after taking into due consideration of
the material placed before it, vide its order dated 27.09.2018;
whereafter the matter was committed to the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Suratgarh; whereupon the complainant
filed another application under Section 193 Cr.P.C., but the same
was also dismissed by the concerned court vide order dated
03.11.2018.
2.2 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter, the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. came to be filed for taking
cognizance against the present petitioners, which was allowed by
the learned court below vide the impugned order dated
26.06.2019, while taking cognizance against the present accused-
petitioners for the offences under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC.
2.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the cognizance
against the present petitioners was taken, without there being no
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:16:03 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-995/2019]
cogent and tangle evidence available on record before the learned
court below, and thus, the impugned order coupled with summons
and arrest warrants issued against the present petitioners
pursuant to the said order, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
2.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution has
even failed to establish a prima facie case to be made out against
the present accused-petitioners, regarding their involvement in
the alleged incident in question, and thus, the present petitioners
being innocent could not have been permitted to be implicated in
the present case, while allowing the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. vide the impugned order passed by the learned court
below.
3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the aforesaid
submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners, submitted
that the present accused-petitioners involvement in the alleged
crime in question was substantiated by the witnesses produced
before the learned court below.
3.1 They further submitted that in the FIR also, the present
petitioners were clearly named, as the persons sitting in the jeep
(used to commit the alleged crime in question - murder of one
Mewa Singh, who was nephew of the complainant) alongwith
accused-Ramandeep and Bhindra Singh.
3.2 Thus, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for
the complainant submitted that the learned court below has
passed the impugned order, after due appreciation of the evidence
placed on record before it, particularly, the testimony of the eye
witnesses to the alleged incident. Thus, the impugned order of
cognizance deserves to be sustained, in the interest of justice.
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 09:16:03 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-995/2019]
4. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the
record of the case.
5. This Court observes that, as is reflected from the record and
rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that witnesses
corroborated the involvement of the accused herein, in the Section
302, 120B/34 IPC. And that, the accused herein were also
specifically named in the F.I.R.
6. This Court further observes that the learned Court below,
vide impugned order 26.06.2019, has taken cognizance against
the accused-petitioners herein, and proceeded with doing so only
after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, and the evidences placed on record before it. The
impugned order is a speaking and detailed order, passed after due
application of mind.
7. This Court in light of the above made observations, finds that
the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and
therefore does not warrant any interference, at this stage. The
impugned order taking cognisance against the accused-petitioners
is hereby affirmed and upheld.
8. The present revision petition is dismissed. Accordingly, all
pending applications if any are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
