IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all material evidence before passing an order and the scope of jurisdiction of the Magistrate in a situation of disagreement with the police report.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu in Sessions Case No.11/2023, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2022, the petitioner submitted a complaint before SHO, PS Taranagar inter-alia alleging therein that his son Rajendra Kumar was running a grocery shop in the village. The accused persons namely Vinod @ Chhagan, Mansukh & Dariya Singh were having enmity with the petitioner’s son because of some money transaction. It has been alleged that few days ago, the accused persons came at the shop of petitioner’s son and demanded money. Some heated arguments took place between them and upon intervention by the family members, the accused persons left the shop while threatening the petitioner’s son to face dire consequences. It has been further alleged that today i.e. 08.09.2022 at 6:30 PM, when the petitioner was sitting outside the house along with his younger son Begraj, they suddenly heard gunshot. Upon which, they saw the accused persons namely Vinod @ Chhagan, Mansukh & Dariya Singh standing towards the shop along with two other persons. Accused persons namely Vinod @ Chhagan & Mansukh were having pistol in their hand and they were continuously firing on the petitioner’ son Rajendra, who was sitting in the shop. The petitioner with his family members rushed towards the shop, upon which the accused-persons fled away. The petitioner took his son to Government Hospital, Taranagar and during treatment his son died.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Police registered the FIR against the accused persons and commenced investigation. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet only against accused person Vinod @ Chhagan for offence under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/25, 27 of Arms Act before the competent court. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused person and committed the case for trial before the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu, where the petitioner moved an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 and vide order dated 23.08.2023, the learned trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Mr. RS Choudhary, Adv. appearing for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, the petitioner/complainant, who was eye-witness of the incident, specifically named the accused Vinod @ Chhagan and respondents No.2 & 3 namely Mansukh Ram & Dariya Singh respectively. Counsel further submits that other eye-witnesses of the case namely Krishan Kumar, Begraj, Rajendra & Smt. Meera also named the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 in their statements, but Police did not record their statements in true perspective. Counsel further submits that since the Police was not fairly investigating the matter, aforesaid eye-witness Krishna Kumar submitted his affidavit before the Superintendent of Police, Churu. Counsel submits that the Police exonerated the accused-respondent No.2 & 3 on the basis of confessional statement of accused Vinod @ Chhagan in which he stated that accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not present at the place of incident. Counsel submits that at this stage, the confessional statement of the accused Vinod @ Chhagan is not relevant at all when the independent witnesses have specifically named the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3. Counsel submits that despite specific allegation against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3, the learned trial court did not take cognizance against them. Thus, the finding of learned trial court is absolutely wrong and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel has cited the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Balveer Singh & Or