Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 23.3.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in connection with Final report No. 69/1990 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 306/34 I.P.C. and against the order dated 23.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Hanumangarh Headquarter Nohar, affirming the said order in revision.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance, which is an ex parte order. He submits that the police has given Final Report in the matter on the basis of the statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded during the course of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. As well as during investigation. Now the cognizance has been taken on the strength of statements under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. which disclose a highly exaggerated version on the part of the complainant. He submits that the F.I.R. was filed after one month of the alleged occurrence and if the complete investigation papers are read then the same would reveal that no abetment was made by the petitioners to the deceased. It is submitted that the allegation of demand has not found support with the learned Magistrate himself as per the impugned order. However, he submits that the petitioners should be given a liberty to raise all the objections before the trial Court at the stage of charge because the order taking cognizance is an ex parte order. He further submits that the petitioners have been summoned by warrants of arrest and as such they should be summoned by bailable warrants instead of warrants of arrest in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Mohan Goswami, AIR 2008 SC 251 .
(3.) The Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.;