B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated November 30, 1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the petitioners under Section 436, IPC.
(2.) ONCE Kewal Chand, on April 2, 1983, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Barmer, to the effect that he was informed by Harchand that his hut has been burnt by some unknown persons, and the fire was extinguished by Laxman Ram and Chandana Ram. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report in the matter. After submission of the Final Report, Kewal Chand filed a complaint against the petitioners on July 11, 1983 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated July 23, 1983, accepted the Final Report submitted by the Police, as according to the learned Magistrate no case was made -out against the accused -petitioners from the police investigation. He however, directed that the complaint already filed by the complainant will continue. He after accepting the Final Report, recorded the statement of the witness under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. PC and thereafter, by this order dated November 11, 1983, took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 436, IPC and committed the accused to stand their trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer. At the time of framing the charges, an objection was taken by the learned Counsel for the accused that as the Final Report was accepted by the learned Magistrate in the same after hearing the complainant, therefore as the Magistrate became functus officio in taking the cognizance aginst the petitioners and, therefore, the order dated November 11, 1983 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance aginst the petitioner, is wholly without jurisdiction and the petitioner, is wholly without jurisdiction and the whole proceeding, initiated in pursuance to the order dated Nov. 11, 1983 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the eye of law and deserves with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and by the order dated November 30, 1989, framed the charges the petitioners under Section 436, IPC. It is against this order, framing the charges that the petitioners have, also, prayed that the proceedings initiated in pursuance to the order dated November 11, 1983 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, may, also, be quashed.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer.;