Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore, District Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No. 47/2012 preferred on behalf of the petitioner and another co -accused Tararam. The revisional court has dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the trial court has rejected the FR No. 7/2008 of Police Station, Bagra, District Jalore and accepted the protest petition filed by the respondent No. 2 and ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120 -B IPC. The trial court has also summoned the petitioner and other co -accused through arrest warrant.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that from bare perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, it is clear that the dispute between them is in relation to nonpayment of money in lieu of execution of the registered sale -deed of a house and essentially the same is of civil nature. It is also contended that after thorough investigation, the police has filed negative final report while concluding that no offence as alleged in the complaint is made out against the petitioner and other co -accused person, however, the trial court without much deliberating upon the conclusion arrived at by the police, while blindly placing reliance upon the statements of the witnesses recorded in respect of the complaint under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120 -B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even from the statement of the witnesses recorded before the trial court, no offence is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the trial court has erred in taking cognizance against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120 -B IPC and the revisional court has also erred in affirming the order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the trial court has also erred in summoning the petitioner through arrest warrant at the first instance. It is contended that the trial court should have summoned the petitioner through bailable warrant instead of arrest warrant at the first instance and if the said bailable warrant could not be served upon the petitioner for whatsoever reasons, then only the trial court should have summoned the petitioner through arrest warrant.
(3.) IN respect of the above argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan reported in : (2014) 3 SCC 321.;