Rajasthan High CourtMangal Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 9 August, 20161
                                                               CRLMP No.3661/2016


In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench
                             Jaipur
                           O R D E R
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3661 of 2016
    Mangal Singh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another

                  Date of Order           :::     09.08.2016

          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia, Counsel for the petitioners
Mr. R.R. Baisla, Public Prosecutor for the State***

             Instant petition has been preferred underSection 482of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to assail the order dated

03.09.2015 passed by Court of A.C.J.M. Bandikui District Dausa,

whereby     ld.    Magistrate   had       taken   cognizance    of    offences

punishable underSections 341,323,452and354I.P.C. against the

petitioners. A further prayer has been made that the order dated

16.04.2016 passed by Revisional Court below be also set aside,

whereby order taking cognizance by Court of A.C.J.M. Bandikui, was

affirmed.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

submitted that the petitioners suffered injuries in the occurrence,

at the instance of complainant to the cross-version. First

Information Report was registered at instance of petitioner No.1

and respondent No.2 had given a cross-version. Counsel has further

submitted that cross-version was investigated by the Police, and

the Police came to a conclusion that complainant to cross-version

had lodged a false First Information Report, hence, Investigating2CRLMP No.3661/2016Agency submitted a Final Report in negative form. Aggrieved

against the same, complainant filed a protest petition.Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that in

protest petition, so filed, the Court of Magistrate had summoned

the petitioners to stand trial for offences punishable underSections 341&354I.P.C. Counsel further contends that the finding

given by the Investigating Agency that the petitioners had not

committed any offence was just and proper and the same could not

be ignored by the Court below while deciding protest petition.A perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Court

below reveals that the trial Court had proceeded to record the

statement of the complainant underSection 202Cr.P.C. and taking

preliminary evidence recorded, the trial Court had summoned the

petitioners to stand trial.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, this Court is of the view that at this juncture, oral

evidence, emerging in the preliminary evidence before the trial

Court cannot be ignored. The documents in favour of the

petitioners cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the

order of cognizance, as the submissions made by learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and the documents relied, raise

disputed questions of fact. Furthermore, the evidence gathered

and to be produced before the trial Court require appreciation.

Hence, it will be for the concerned Court to evaluate, during trial3CRLMP No.3661/2016the evidence to find, whether the petitioners had committed any

offence or not.However, considering that the Investigating Agency

had found the petitioners innocent and the complainant has named

as many as eight members of the family of accused, which include

the ladies also, this Court is of the view that qua minor offences

punishable underSections 341and354I.P.C., personal appearance

of the petitioners before the ld. trial Court can be exempted.Hence, the present petition is, hereby, disposed of by

issuing following direction :"A. That the proceedings in a case arising out of F.I.R.
       No.847/2014 registered at Police Station Bandikui for

       offences punishable underSections 143,341,323,452and379I.P.C. lodged at the instance of the petitioner No.1 shall

       be tried separately, but simultaneously with the cross-

       version, i.e. criminal case bearing No.646/2015 pending in the

       Court of A.C.J.M. Bandikui."It is further ordered that the personal appearance

of the petitioners before the trial Court shall remain exempted,

subject to filing of an undertaking in which following conditions shall

be incorporated:-(i) That the petitioners shall specify in the undertaking that

      they shall appear before the Court at the time of framing of

      charges, recording of statement underSection 313Cr.P.C. and

      at the time of delivery of the judgment. Petitioners also

      undertake that during trial, petitioners shall be represented

      by a lawyer.4CRLMP No.3661/2016(ii) That the petitioners shall also specify in the undertaking

               that evidence recorded in their absence, but in the presence

               of their counsel shall be binding upon them.(iii) That the petitioners shall also specify in the undertaking

               that they shall appear before the trial Court as and when

               trial Court direct them to do so.(iv)   That the petitioners shall not dispute their identity.(v)    That the trial Court may incorporate any condition or

               conditions in the undertaking to be furnished by the

               petitioners."Upon disposal of main petition, stay application, filed

         therewith does not survives and the same is also disposed of.[ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] J.ashok/