Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—These two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated order dated 2.6.2011 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast track) No.1 Jaipur in Sessions case No. 5 of 2009 whereby the trial court allowed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioners Brij Mohan Meena, Smt. Ramdulari, Baney Singh and Rashmi (revision petition No. 782 of 2011) whereas the order has been challenged by Dharam Singh father of deceased Renu for rejecting the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioners Prem Singh, Roop Singh, Brij Ballabh, and Jagmohan (revision petition No. 700 of 2011), hence they are being disposed by this common order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner No.1 Virendra Meena got married to one Renu Meena daughter of Dharam Singh at Arya Samaj, Rajapark, Jaipur as marriage of choice which was opposed by the family of Renu Meena, resultant to which an FIR No. 444/2004 Police Station Mantown Sawai Madhopur was registered for abduction. Meanwhile parents of Renu Meena who had been legally wedded wife of Virendra Meena forcibly abducted by the aid of Police personnel belonging to Sanganer Police Station, resultant to which habeas corpus petition was submitted before this Court wherein gril was brought by the parents who on oath stated that she was willfully resided with her husband and wants to do so in future. This court after granting police protection sent Renu Meena with Virendra Meena. The couple resided initially at C-7 PNB flats Malviya Nagar, Jaipur thereafter shifted to the rented place Plot No. 70 CBI Colony Arvind Nagar, Jaipur. It was alleged in the petition that on 13.9.2008 Renu Meena died a natural death since she was suffering from low B.P. and other ailments but the family members of Renu Meena who were keeping enmity since their marriage lodged an FIR which was investigated under section 304 B IPC. It has been alleged in the petition that under the influence of complainant the police filed challan against Virendra Meena and subsequently charge was leveled and trial is undergoing. The other family members of Virendra Meena those who are petitioners herein in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 the investigation was kept pending under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The petitioners in criminal revision petition No. 782 of 2011 being afraid of Renu Meena's father who enjoys high position due to he being Senior District Judge, requested higher police officials to get the investigation conducted by CID CB in written their grievance was redressed and investigation was conducted by CID CB against the petitioners, whose investigation was pending under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. After comprehensive investigation, the police submitted negative final report and closed the file. It is alleged in the petition that after submission of final report against the petitioners, in their statements the prosecution witnesses Pradeep (PW.1), Dharam Singh Meena (PW.10), Smt. Kiran, (PW.11) and Govind (PW.12), they categorically tried to incorporate the petitioners even when no iota of evidence was available on the record to connect the petitioners with the present crime. Application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.12.2010 reiterating therein that the petitioners were involved in the crime and used to harass deceased Renu Meena. Reply to the application was filed by Virendra Meena since he was facing trial and incorporation of other accused would not only shatter his defence but would also delay the trial unwarrantably. It was stated in the reply that the application was without any substance and no iota of evidence by way of imagination whatsoever can connect the petitioners with the present crime. The trial court decided the application and cognizance was taken against the petitioners in revision petition No. 782 of 2011 and rejected the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioners 1 to 5 in the revision petition No.; 7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document