GOVERDHAN BARDHAR,J. - (1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22-07-2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby he allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No. 2 and ordered to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 143 and 436 IPC against the petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned trial Court while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has not considered the fact that in this matter S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1667/2010 was decided by this Court on 01-08-2012 and the order of taking cognizance against the accused/petitioners was quashed. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused-petitioners summoned will in all likelihood be convicted, there is no material available on record to connect with the alleged offences. It is further argued that independent witnesses Arjun Singh and Chhogaji have specifically stated in their statements that the respondent No. 2 has lodged the complaint due to animosity because the petitioner Tiloka Ram and complainant Mohabbat Singh having dispute of plot. Counsel further argued that the learned trial Court without considering the fact that this Court has already discharged the petitioners from the alleged offences but the learned trial Court merely relying upon the statements of the complainant and interested witness his nephew Ratan Singh, has taken cognizance for offences under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order impugned dated 22.07.2015, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order dated 22-07-2015 passed by the learned trial Court.;