- (1.) The petitioner, by way of this criminal misc. petition, challenges the order dated 30. 7. 2018, whereby while acquitting the accused under Section 376 , 506 IPC, learned Sessions Judge initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 193 IPC and on the same day also took cognizance under Section 193 IPC and issued notices to the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was the prosecutrix in the case and on account of compromise and subsequent marriage having taken place with the accused did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile in the criminal case as her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. has been recorded earlier, the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused has initiated proceedings and took cognizance that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 193 IPC. However, before the cognizance could be taken under Section 193 IPC by the Sessions Judge, the procedure was required to be followed. Further, there is no complaint made under Section 340 Cr. P. C. as against the petitioner nor any proceeding has been drawn under Section 340 Cr. P. C. It is submitted that had such complaint been filed, the petitioner would have been given an opportunity at that stage.
(3.) In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan: S. B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 5750/2017, decided on 10. 05. 2019 wherein in the identical facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has set side the order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Alwar whereby cognizance was taken under Section 193 IPC against petitioner - Kavita Sharma, who has turned hostile during the trial.;