Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 3 Bagga Singh and Mangal Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in FIR No. 260/2016 registered at Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh on 26.08.2016, inspite of direct evidence of injured eye-witnesses against the respondent No. 2 Bagga Singh and respondent No. 3 Mangal Singh, no charge sheet was filed, therefore, after committal proceedings before the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the respondents No. 2 & 3 because there is specific allegations in the statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but the learned trial Court rejected the said application while observing that although there is evidence, but petitioner can file application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at proper stage.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of filing an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is to apprise the Court that there is an ample evidence against the respondents, but no charge-sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, cognizance may be taken by the trial Court itself though there is remedy to the petitioner for filing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but it is the duty of the Court that at the time of deciding the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C., to consider the entire evidence, which is available on record for the purpose of taking cognizance, but it has not been decided in this case, therefore, the order impugned may kindly be quashed and application filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner complainant may kindly be allowed and respondents No. 2 & 3 Bagga Singh S/o Shri Inder Singh and Mangal Singh S/o Shri Jangir Singh may kindly be impleaded as accused while taking cognizance against them.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3 vehemently opposed the prayer and said that although there is statement against the respondents No. 2 & 3 by the injured eye-witness, but the learned trial Court granted opportunity to the petitioner to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance after recording their statements on oath during trial, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 91/2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was rejected.;