- (1.) The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 8-9-2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 86/2008 by which the learned revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners has upheld the order dated 25-8-2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 19/2004 whereby the learned trial Court took cognizance for offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint filed by the non-petitioner No. 2-complainant.
(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant-Ashok Kumar filed a complaint for offences under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 120-B, IPC against the present petitioners and some other persons on 20-9-2003 before the trial Court and that complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. PC. to the concerned police station where FIR No. 73/2003 was registered and after usual investigation the police filed charge-sheet against five persons only for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 in the Court on 20-12-2003 and on the same day cognizance was taken by the Court. It is stated that in that case charges have already been framed against the persons against charge-sheet was filed and the matter is pending for trial. Thereafter, the complainant on the same set of facts filed another complaint on 3-2-2004 against the five left out persons including the present petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A, 114 and 116, IPC stating therein that the police did not file charge-sheet against the persons named in the second complaint and it was prayed that cognizance may be taken against these persons also. In support of the complaint statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. were recorded. The learned trial Court on the basis of complaint and the evidence produced in support of that, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC vide order dated 25-8-2006 and ordered that they may be summoned through bailable warrant. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25-8-2006 the petitioners filed a revision petition before the revisional Court and the learned revisional Court after hearing both the parties by passing the impugned order dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this petition.
(3.) Assailing the orders passed by the Courts below the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is an admitted fact that on the complaint filed by the non-petitioner FIR was registered and after investigation police did not file charge-sheet against the petitioners and only against five persons charge-sheet was filed whom the police found involved in the incident. It was also submitted that despite the fact that charge-sheet was filed in trial Court on 20-12-2003, no prayer was made by the non-petitioner that cognizance may also be taken against the persons left out by the police but the non-petitioner on the same facts filed another complaint on 3-2-2004 and the trial Court without jurisdiction took cognizance against the petitioners whereas the settled legal position is that on the same set of facts second or subsequent complaint cannot be filed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Shahjad Ali & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 CrLJ 3400.;