BHAGE KHAN S/O FIROJ KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have laid this misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. imploring annulment of impugned order dated 08.02.2013 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for short, 'learned revisional Court') affirming order dated 20.06.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (for short, 'learned trial Court') framing charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sec. 147, 353, 332 read with Sec. 149 IPC.

(2.) The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that SHO, Police Station Thanwla filed a report on 13.05.2010 at Police Station Kotwali, Jaisalmer, inter-alia, alleging therein that while discharging his duties as SHO when he along with other police staff went to village Jawandh to serve summons to prosecutrix Indra Devi in case No. 05/10, the accused-petitioners prevented him from discharging his official duty and committed offences punishable under Sec. 143, 353 & 332 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet against the petitioners was filed for the offences under Sec. 147, 332, 353/149 IPC. Learned trial Court, at the threshold, took cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and thereafter, vide order dated 20.06.2011, framed aforesaid charges against the accused-petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners approached the learned revisional Court but the said effort of the petitioners also proved abortive and the learned revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Joshi, submits that in fact prosecutrix Indra Devi has candidly stated in her statement under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. that she has not been abducted by any person and she is living with the first petitioner out of her own volition then obviously there was no occasion for the SHO concerned to serve summons on her for her appearance. Learned counsel further submits that in fact, the prosecutrix has also reiterated before the Court under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. the same version and in spite of that the accused persons approached her during odd hours to harass her and that in fact prompted the petitioners to put a reasonable resistance which has led to filing of the report and registration of case against them. Learned counsel further submits that if the impugned orders are allowed to be sustained, the same would result in miscarriage of justice. Lastly, Mr. Joshi would contend that for serious omissions and commission of the accused persons, i.e., S.H.O. and other police personnels, complaint was lodged by petitioner No. 4 for their high handed action and a competent Court has taken cognizance against the SHO and other police officials for offences under Sec. 147, 323, 365, 458 read with Sec. 149 Penal Code and criminal case is still pending against them is sufficient to show that charges slapped against the petitioners are per se improbable and if trial is allowed to be continued, it would be a sheer vexation of the proceedings.