IMPORTANT POINTS
Taking cognizance by Magistrate u/s 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. on the basis of materials before him is valid.
Quashment of cognizance obtained by suppressing fact of framing of charge is illegal.

JUDGMENT :-

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The factual score of the case in hand frescoes a scenario and reflects the mindset of the first respondent which would justifiably invite the statement “court is not a laboratory where children come to play”. The action of the accused-respondent depicts the attitude where one calculatedly conceives the concept that he is entitled to play a game of chess in a court of law and the propriety, expected norms from a litigant and the abhorrence of courts to the issues of suppression of facts can comfortably be kept at bay. Such a proclivity appears to have weighed uppermost in his mind on the base that he can play in aid of technicalities to his own advantage and the law, in its essential substance, and justice, with its divine attributes, can unceremoniously be buried in the grave. But, an eloquent one, the complainant with his committed and adroit endeavour has allowed the cause to rise like a phoenix from the grave by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 327 of 2011 whereby the learned single Judge by order dated 13.8.2012 accepted the plea of the accused-respondent and quashed the charges framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) not on the substratum of merits but on the foundation that the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons had already been set aside by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2009 and, therefore, the principle “when the infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse” got attracted. As it appears, though the High Court noticed the various dates, the suppression of facts and the factum that the accused being fully aware that the charges had been framed in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur on 27.7. 2009, chose not to inform the revisional court, namely, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur, yet, possibly feeling legally helpless, interfered with the order of framing charges and quashed the same granting liberty to the prosecution to file an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity “the Code”) at the relevant stage.

3. Presently to the initial factual exposition. The appellant, as informant, lodged a First Information Report No. 428 of 2007 on 23.11.2007 at Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Jodhpur, on the basis of which investigation was carried on and, eventually, a charge sheet was placed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 379 IPC against one Shyam Lal s/o Venaram. After the submission of the charge-sheet, the informant filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, asseverating that another accused, Prem Prakash, who had attacked his son with knife had deliberately not been made an accused. The learned Magistrate, as is manifest, after analyzing the materials on record, thought it appropriate to take cognizance against Prem Prakash @ Pappu for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 379 IPC and, accordingly, summoned him through arrest warrant.

4. Being dissatisfied, accused Prem Prakash called in question the legal sustainability of the said order in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2009 which came to be dealt with by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur who, after referring to the rulings in Kalamudeen and others v. State of Rajasthan and another (2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1118) and Natthi Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another (2007 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 621), opined that when the offences were triable by a court of Session, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance on the basis of a prot