J.S. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. with Pradeep Chaudhary and Siddarth Karwasra, for Respondent

Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta District Nagaur wherein the learned Judge has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and has issued process against the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.09.2009, Ganga Ram, respondent No.2, had submitted a written report before the Police Station Merta City, where he had claimed that while he and his brothers, Ram Niwas and Ganesha Ram, were going to their field for over seeing the crops, when they reached Khasra No.710, the accused persons, Pappu Ram, Ramniwas and Sharda came to the said khasra in a tractor. They stopped the tractor. Carrying iron pipes and lathis, they got down from the tractor. These three persons assaulted the complainant and his brothers. When the complainant and his brothers raised hue and cry, Pappudi, the wife of the complainant, Tijani and Om Prakash rushed to their rescue. Meanwhile Ramniwas, Dhanna Ram, Teja Ram, Sharwan, Indira Shankara Ram, Shanti, Jimnai also came to the place of incident. They were armed with sharp and blunt weapons. Dhanna Ram assaulted Ramniwas; Teja Ram assaulted his mother Tijani with an axe. After Ramniwas fell, Dhanna Ram started the tractor and over ran Ramniwas with his tractor. He further alleged that Shanti, Indira and Jimnai assaulted his wife, Smt. Pappu Devi.

3. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR was registered. However, after competition of the investigation, while the police submitted a charge-sheet against the other co-accused persons, the police did not submit a charge-sheet against the present petitioners namely, Jimnai, Indra and Shankara Ram. Therefore, the complainant submitted an application under Section 119(1)(b) Cr.P.C., before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking cognizance against the petitioners as well. Vide order dated 07.01.2010, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present petitioners. However, the petitioners challenged the said order before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court. Vide order dated 16.08,.2010, this Court allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 07.01.2010. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 was filed by the complainant against the petitioners for arraying them as accused persons. Vide order dated 19.12.2011, the learned Judge allowed the application and has arrayed the present petitions as accused. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to the fact that learned Sessions Judge has issued arrest warrant against the petitioners. Relying upon the cases of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (AIR 2008 SC 251), Phula Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1567), and on the case of Suresh Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ((2011) Cri.L.J. 4756 = 2011(4) RLW 3081) the learned counsel has contended that in the first instance summons should have been issued in order to ensure the appearance of the accused. In case, the summons were went unheeded, only then bailable warrant should have been issued. In case, the accused persons do not appear before the learned trial Court, even after the issuance of bailable warrant, then non-bailable warrants should have been issued. However, in the present case, the learned Judge has issued warrant of arrest at the first instance. Therefore, the warrant of arrest should be converted into bailable warrants.

5. In all fairness J.S. Chaudhary, the learned Senior counsel, has not opposed the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

7. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra), the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document