SHARMA, J. - (1.) THESE three criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the accused petitioners against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Bharatpur dated 16.8.2011 whereby the criminal revision petitions 103 of 2010 filed by complainant Pooran Singh, and criminal revision petitions Nos. 60 of 2011 and 61 of 2011 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 1.5.2010 of the Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners were accepted and the cognizance order was set aside and further the Judicial Magistrate was directed to take cognizance against the 9 accused petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 and 302 IPC by summoning the accused petitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.
(2.) SINCE all these three criminal misc. petitions arise from a common order of the Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 Bharatpur dated 16.8.2011, it will be proper for this Court to deal with all these misc. petitions in a common order. At the very outset, 1 may notice that even the contentions raised on behalf of different accused petitioners in their respective criminal misc. petitions are by and large the same, therefore, it will be proper for this Court to deal with all these criminal misc. petitions collectively, more so, when they are based upon common questions of facts and law. Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi and Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners drawn attention of this court towards the order of the revisional court. The operative portion of the order reads thus: JUDGEMENT_2760_RAJLW3_2013.jpg JUDGEMENT_2760_RAJLW31_2013.jpg
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners have pointed out that the revisional court cannot direct the Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 and 302 IPC against the accused petitioners. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners have placed reliance on the judgments of Niku Ram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2006(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.)668, Mool Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others 1998 RCC 688 = RLW 1999(1) Raj. 366, Neemba vs. Bhanaram 1957 RLW 627, Amichand Ahir and another vs. Kirhsna Kumar and another (1997 Cr.L.R. Raj.) 48) Sheetal and another vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (2005(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1429 Ramsingh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2003 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 563, Rajendra Singh Chauhan vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (2009(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 316) Lalita vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2004(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1004), Rajendra Singh Chauhan vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 316), Smt. Rajanti and others vs. Mohan lal and another (2010(2) R.C.C. 674, Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 239, Ganga Ram and another vs. Prabhudayal and another (1987 RCC 81 = 1987 RLW 482), Madhu Das and others vs. State of Rajasthan RLW 1994 (1) 556, and Jagnnath vs. State 1990 RCC 63). Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has seriously opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners. He has further contended that if this court is going to set aside the order of the revisional court, then the order of the revisional court to the extent of directing the Magistrate to proceed against the accused petitioners after following the procedure prescribed under section 204 Cr.P.C. should not be set aside.;