Prakash Tatia, A.C.J. - (1.) BY Court Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) THE Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.3.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 356/2004, whereby the trial court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 379/354/323 Indian Penal Code and Section 3(iii) of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the trial court did not take cognizance of the offence under Section 376/511 Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the complainant has falsely implicated the Petitioner in this criminal case and the Petitioner himself lodged a complainant against one Ajit Kumar on 26th July, 2004, copy of which has been produced as Annexure 2, and in connivance of the said Ajit Kumar, the Respondent complainant has filed this complaint case. It is submitted that police itself inquired the matter and submitted a report on 10th September, 2004, which clearly indicate that Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal case.
(3.) THE Petitioner, who is an accused in a criminal case, wants to get his defence to be investigated here in the writ jurisdiction, instead of getting the said defence in the criminal trial. The trial court had material with it the evidence produced by the complainant and on the basis of the said statement, if cognizance has been taken by the trial court, at this stage, it cannot be said that the cognizance was taken without any basis.;