SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE complainant petitioner, namely, Vishnu Gopal lodged a written report on 4. 3. 1991 at Police Station, Sodala, Jaipur about the death of his daughter Smt. Renu and her child aged 2 years. Having registered a case vide FIR No. 117/91 for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, the police investigated in the matter and on completion thereof, submitted a charge sheet against accused respondent Rama Kant Pareek, thereby alleging offence under Section 498-A IPC. It appears that on 8. 11. 1996 the complainant petitioner filed an application under Sections 216 and 190 Cr. P. C. before the Trial Court with the prayer that cognizance of the offence under Sections 304 B and 306 IPC be taken and the case be committed to the Court of Sessions. It was further prayed that cognizance of offence against other persons named in the FIR and against whom the police did not submit charge sheet, may also be taken. On considering the material and after hearing arguments of counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 29. 7. 1997 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Trial Court, the petitioner approached this court. This court vide order dated 2. 12. 1997 while disposing of the petition of the petitioner, directed the Trial Court that if, in the course of trial, such material disclosing the commission of an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions is placed before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate may proceed with the case in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 323 Cr. P. C. At the same time such evidence, if it discloses the complicity of such other persons in the commission of offence, as were not charge sheeted by the police, may also be summoned as additional accused, in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 complainant Vishnu Gopal (father of deceased), PW3 Radhey Shyam and PW5 Bhaskar. After the above named 3 witnesses were examined, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 319 and 323 Cr. P. C. on 19. 5. 1999 with a prayer to summon Mohan Lal Pareek (since dead), Madhusudan Pareek, Sita Devi and Smt. Vidhya Devi as an additional accused and to commit the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of offence under Section 304-B IPC. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence and material, dismissed the petitioner's application vide its order dated 30. 3. 2001. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 30. 3. 2001, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the court of Sessions, which came to be decided by the Special Judge (Fake Currency cases), Jaipur and the learned Special Judge considering every aspect of the matter dismissed the revision petition vide its order dated 20. 12. 2001 and affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. It was in the above circumstances that the petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the orders dated 30. 3. 2001 and 20. 12. 2001, the earlier being passed by the Trial Court and later being passed by the revisional court.
(3.) IN assailing the impugned orders, the main thrust of the argument of Mr. S. K. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner is that maticulous examination of evidence and critical evaluation thereof by both the courts below at the stage of deciding the application filed under Sections 319 and 323 Cr. P. C. is not permissible and hence the courts below have committed grave error in dismissing the petitioner's application. According to him, otherwise also, from the evidence and material available on record it is clearly made out that the accused other than the present accused respondent are also involved in the commission of crime and that the present case is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions in view of Section 304 B and 306 IPC. Per contra, Mr. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for accused respondent has supported the impugned orders passed by the two courts below and has strenuously contended that once the matter has already been examined by the revisional court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise it again in second revision by resorting to the provisions of Section 482 Cr. P. C. In support of his argument, Mr. Sharma has relied upon various decisions of this court and that of a decision of the Apex Court in Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan (1 ). I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the evidence and material available on record and the reasons assigned by the courts below in the impugned orders dismissing the petitioners' application filed under Sections 323 and 319 Cr. P. C. There is hardly any dispute on the point that while deciding the application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. the court is not required to have maticulous examination of the evidence. But at the same time the court is required to examine the evidence with a view to find out whether there exists reasonable prospect of conviction as against other newly added accused. I am fortified in my view by a decision of the Apex Court in Machael Machado vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2), wherein, their Lordships in para 14 of the judgment have held as hereunder: ". . . . Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we would say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action". ;