M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) All these three petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have common origin and identical facts. These were heard together and are now disposed of by this consolidated order. The main order shall be placed on the record of S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 547/99 and copy thereof on the record of each of the other two cases.
(2.) The relevant facts in all the three petitions are as under: 1. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petitions No. 547/99 : In this case Mst. Sita Sharma, respondent No. 2 lodged a written report at police station, Bassi district, Jaipur alleging therein that she had been serving with the Bal Rashmi Society (an educational society) since 1989; that Smt. Alice Garg, the petitioner was the Incharge of the said Society, that some 5 or 6 years back the students of the society were sent to participate in the tournaments held at Goondi, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and the informant along with other members of the staff had accompanied the students to Goondi; that at Goondi three members of the staff, namely Abdul Sattar, Sita Ram and Satya Narain committed rape on her; that on her return to Bassi she had although complained of the misdeeds of the colleagues to the petitioner but she paid no heed to her complaint and instead around the Holi festival of the year 1994 the informant, under threat, coercion and under influence of the petitioner, had to offer herself to be subjected to sexual intercourse certain guests of the petitioner. On the basis of such written report crime No. 420/98 Under sections 376, 384 r.w. section 120-B IPC was registered at the said police station against the petitioner and others. After investigation of the case the police submitted its report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 5.11.1998 as against Abdul Sattar, Sita Ram and Satya Narain, afore-mentioned. However, investigation, as against the present petitioner was kept pending under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate had though taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences on the basis of the police report submitted before him, yet he did not commence committal proceedings until receipt of the further report of the police under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. as against the present petitioner. The additional or supplementary report under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was although a negative report as against the present petitioner but the learned Magistrate summoned the present petitioner as an additional accused in the case to answer the accusation for offences under sections 376, 384 r.w. section 120-B IPC vide his impugned order dated 25.5.99. That order of the learned Magistrate has been challenged in the present petition on the ground of want of jurisdiction to the Magistrate to summon an additional accused at the stage of Section 209 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offence exclusively triable by court of Sessions. 2. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 548/99 In this case Smt. Krishna lodged FIR No. 492/98 on 16.9.98 with the same police station Bassi stating therein that her sister Smt. Radhika Alias Ratna was married with one Dharmender and was living with him at Delhi; that 1 on having received the information to kill Radhika by sprinkling kerosene on her, she brought her to Jaipur for treatment; that during her stay in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, Radhika told the informant that while she (Radhika) was employed in Bal Rashmi Society, Bassi as aforementioned the co-employees 5 namely Abdullah, Dharmender (aforesaid husband of Radhika), Nirmal Godha, Om Prakash and others repeatedly commit rape on her. After investigation of the case the police submitted their report under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for offence under section 376 IPC on 14.12.98 as against Dharmendar only and kept the investigation pending as against others; that on 22.5.99 the police i submitted a negative report in respect of other persons (who are petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 in the present petition); that though the learned Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence under section 376 IPC and had proceeded under section 209 Cr.RC. as against Dharmender accused yet on submission of the negative report by the police in respect of the petitioner the 1 learned Magistrate summoned them as additional accused in the case for offences under section 307, 327, 376 r.w. Section 120-B IPC. The order dated 24.5.99 passed by the learned Magistrate in that behalf has been challenged on the same ground of want of jurisdiction to the learned Magistrate to so summon the petitioners as additional accused' in the case at the stage of s proceedings under section 209 Cr.P.C. 3. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 735/99 In this case Smt. Gyarsi Devi (respondent No. 2) filed on 11.8.98 a complaint in the court of the learned Magistrate at Bassi against Smt. Alice Garg, petitioner and one Mool Singh for offences under sections 376, 420 r.w. : section 120-B IPC. It was alleged in the said complaint that some four years back when she and Mool Singh aforesaid were employed in the institution run by the petitioner under the auspices of Bal Rashmi Society, Bassi, Mool Singh had taken her to the petitioner's residence in connection with borrowing of some loan; that the petitioner got some documents prepared by her: that two days after she was again called by the petitioner at her residence and was asked.to go inside a room; that when she went in that room two unknown persons caught hold of her and raped her; that after coming out of the said room Mool Singh aforesaid took her to another room and raped her; that the petitioner and Mool Singh aforesaid had threatened her with dire consequences in case she narrated the incident to any body else and hence she did not tell the incident to any other person. This complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate to the police station Bassi for investigation. At the police station FIR No. 429/98 under sections 376, 420 r.w. section 120-B IPC and 3 SC/ST act was registered and investigation was commenced. In the course of investigation the statements of Smt. Gyarsi Devi were recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.RC. Later on Smt. Gyarsi Devi and her husband Sh. Radhey Shyam filed their affidavits wherein they deposed that the complaint had been filed by Smt. Gyarsi Devi on being coerced and unduly influenced by certain persons who wanted to defame and destroy the reputation of Smt. Alice Garg and the institution being run by her and that no rape was ever committed by any person on Smt. Gyarsi Devi. After collecting other evidence also the police concluded that no offence was committed in the case. The police, therefore, submitted a negative report on 30.7.99 in respect to the petitioner and Mool Singh aforesaid though notice regarding submission of a negative police report in the case had been given to the informant complaint Smt. Gyarsi Devi, respondent No. 2 yet she filed no protest petition against such report. However, the learned Magistrate, vide his impugned order dated 3.8.99 took cognizance of offences under sections 376, 420, 384, 385 r.w. section 120-B IPC and section 3 (i)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and summoned Alice Garg petitioner and Mool Singh aforesaid as accused through non-bailable warrants of arrests. Further, he was of the opinion that the investigating officer had wrongly taken into consideration the affidavits of Smt. Gyarsi and her husband Radhey Shyam in contravention of section 3 of Evidence Act and also did not interrogate the persons who had allegedly exercised undue influence upon them for getting the complaint filed by Smt. Gyarsi in the court and had thus committed gross error. He therefore, directed the Director General Police, Rajasthan, to hold a disciplinary enquiry against the investigating officer Sh. R.P Srivastava and called for the compliance report from him by 30.8.99. This order of the learned Magistrate dated 3.8.99 has been challenged mainly on the ground that there was absolutely no material before the learned Magistrate in the negative police report and the documents submitted along therewith to hav6 taken cognizance of any offence and summoned the petitioner and Mool Chand aforesaid as accused thereunder and that he had simply been unjustifiably and illegally led by extraneous considerations in making his order in that way.
(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully considered the material placed before me.;