Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. judgment dated 30.4.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Criminal Revision No. 8/2010 is under challenge, whereby, the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and upheld the order dated 7.6.2010 passed by Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Merta in Criminal Case No. 19/2010, by which, the said Court took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 325 and 302/149, IPC upon application filed by the complainant under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. As per facts, in brief, an FIR was registered at police station Merta City on 3.9.2009, in which, an allegation was mad by the complainant Gangaram that he and his brother Ram Niwas and Ganesha Ram went in the morning to their agricultural field. When they reached at the field situated in khasra No. 710 accused Pappuram, Ram Niwas S/o Bhanwaru Ram and Sharda came on a tractor at the sport. They were having with them lathi, kulhari (axe) and iron rod and, after reaching at the spot, upon their shouts accused Dhanna Ram, Teja Ram, Shrawan Ram, Shanker Ram and Shanti also came at the spot and gave severe beating to the complainant party. In the FIR, specific allegation was levelled against Dhannaram for having struck with iron rod on the head of Ram Niwas (brother of the complainant), against accused Tejaram for inflicting injury with axe upon the person of the mother of the complainant and, thereafter, he hit axe blow on the head of the brother of the complainant, upon which, his brother Ram Niwas fell down and Dhanna Ram immediately sat in the tractor and crushed his brother Ram Niwas under wheels of the tractor 3-4 times.

3. Likewise, Pappu Ram, Ganesha Ram, Shrawan, Sharda, Indra and Jimni also assaulted and beat wife of the complainant. Against accused Shanker Ram, it is stated that he gave beating with lathi when complainant's brother Ram Niwas fell down on the ground which resulted into his death.

4. After investigation, the police filed challan against Dhanna Ram, Shrawan Ram, Pappu Ram, Shanti, Sharda Ram Niwas s/o Bhanwaroo Ram and Teje Ram but no challan was filed against Shanker Ram, Jimni and Indra. Just after filing challan, an application was filed by the complainant under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance on the basis of challan papers against Indra w/o Sharwan Ram, Jimnai w/o Shanker Ram and Shanker Ram. It was prayed in the said application that there is evidence on record and case is made out against these accused also for taking cognizance of the offences against them too, therefore, against these three persons also cognizance may be taken. In support of the application, learned counsel for the complainant invited attention of the Court towards judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 2005(1) Apex Court Judgment 103 (SC), Gangadhar Janardhan Mahatre vs. State of Maharashtra and 2005(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 857, Krishanalal vs. State of Rajasthan and submitted that cognizance may be taken against the above three persons.

5. The trial Court while following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2001(6) SCC 670, Swail India Ltd. vs. State of Delhi and 2001(8) SCC 522, Rajendra Prasad vs. Bashir & Others and AIR 1967 SC 1167, Khubram Dubey vs. State of Bihar took cognizance in exercise of power under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. and issued warrant of arrest against all the above three accused persons. Said order was challenged by way of filing revision petition but the revisional Court also gave opinion that cognizance taken by the trial Court upon application under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. does not require any interference and upheld the order passed by the trial Court. In the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners are challenging both the aforesaid orders.

6. Contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners while challenging both t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document