- (1.) BY THE COURT: By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, the State has impugned the order dated 15th July, 2002, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri took the cognizance of the offences under Section 147, 323, 325, 452, 336 readwith Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and ordered to proceed against the accused persons namely Vijay Singh, Babli @ Arjun, Bheem Singh, Dashrath @ Tilu.
(2.) HEARD learned PP appearing for the State and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. Having perused the impugned order, it is noticed that in a case pertaining to FIR No. 81/2002, the police after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused persons namely Vijay Singh, Babli @ Arjun, Bheem Singh, Dashrath @ Tilu for the offences under Section 147, 149, 323, 325, 452, 336 IPC and for the offence under Section 304 Part-II against the accused Parmanand and kept the investigation pending against the accused persons namely Kiran, Bhadar Singh, Dharamveer @ Dholia under Section 173 (8) of CrPC. The police also stated in the charge sheet that no evidence was found against the accused Ganeshi Lal, hence he was implored to have been released under Section 169 of CrPC. The learned trial court did not accept the prayer of police with regard to accused Ganeshi Lal, who was implored to have been released under Section 169 of CrPC. The court proceeded against the accused Ganeshi Lal for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and took the cognizance of the offences under Section 147, 323, 325, 452, 336 readiwth Section 149 of Indian Penal Code against the aforestated accused persons namely Vijay Singh and others. The petitioner-State filed this petition on the premise that there was no evidence against the accused Ganeshi Lal on record, despite that the court took the cognizance of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and proceeded against the accused Ganeshi Lal. At the very outset, it is relevant to point out that the Honourable Apex Court has consistently held in catena of cases that the inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Som Mittal Versus Government of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 3 SCC page 757, has held that the High Courts are found to have exercised the powers under Section 482 of CrPC in routine and the order of taking cognizance is set at naught at the threshold. The Honourable Apex Court has also observed that in criminal cases, where the grave offences are involved, the ends of justice should not be scuttled at the threshold and the order of cognizance should not be quasehd. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the learned trial court found sufficient evidence emerging on record against the accused Ganeshi Lal for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal code and the learned trial court is found to have committed no error in taking cognizance of the said offences and proceeded against the accused Ganeshi Lal. Similarly, the trial court is found to have rightly taken the cognizance of the offences under Section 147, 323, 325, 452, 336 readwith Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and proceeded against the accused Vijay Singh, Babli @ Arjun, Bheem Singh, Dashrath @ Tilu. The impugned order is found to be just and apt and suffers from no infirmity. E-Conveso, the petition is found to be totally bereft of substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of criminal misc. petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.;