Rajasthan High Court
K.S. Lodha, J.
Bagh Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 32 of 1985
Decided On : April 19, 1985
I am clearly of the opinion that the authorities of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners clearly go to show that it was only upto 31.7.82 when the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against Harjinder Singh and Ranjeet Singh that be could have acted u/s 190 and thereafter he could not have taken cognizance against the present petitioners on the basis of the police report already filed before him before 31.7.82 and thereafter he could have acted only u/s 319 if the evidence during the course of an enquiry or trial before him, there came to his notice some evidence implicating the present petitioners. The cognizance of an offence can be said to be taken when the Magistrate applies his mind to the matter before him and decides to proceed further with the matter. Now when once he has applied his mind to the police report which has been placed before him and he decides to take cognizance of the offences only against some of the accused persons it cannot be envisaged that he will have further opportunities of re-considering the same police report again and again and on the basis thereof he would take cognizance against other accused persons who may appear to be involved in the commission of some offence because if it is allowed to be done, there would be no end to the re-consideration of the police papers from time to time. (para 7 & 8)
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Trilok Singh filed a F. I. R. against Harjinder Singh alleging that a truck No. R. J. Z. 2115 was registered in the name of Mohd. Sharif who sold it to Habib and Ramesh Chandra and Ramesh Chandra in his turn sold it to Trilok Singh and the accused Harjinder Singh. It was further alleged that Trilok Singh invested a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and Harjinder Singh invested a sum of Rs. 17, 000/- for the purchase of this truck and it was agreed that the rest of the amount shall be paid at the time of the transfer of the registration to Ramesh Chandra. The truck was kept in the custody of Harjinder Singh and he was to maintain the accounts. However, it was further alleged that when Trilok Singh asked for accounts, Harjinder Singh told him that the truck was not plying properly and there were losses. On this account some disputes arose between the two, However, that matter was later compromised between them and it was agreed that the ownership of the truck shall be transferred to Trilok Singh alone on certain agreed payments.
3. It was further alleged that when Trilok Singh, went with the amount to Harjinder Singh, he found that the said truck had been converted into truck No. R.J.Q. 6469. He there upon lodged a report to the police. The police after investigations filed a challan. On investigations the police found that the truck No. RJQ 6469 originally belonged to one Krishna Gopal and was registered in his name. It was out of order and had been surrendered. However, Harjinder Singh and his brother Manjeet Singh purchased this truck from Krishna Gopal. As the registration of that truck had already been surrendered, a fresh registration was to be obtained and, therefore, they converted truck No RJZ2115 into truck No. RJQ6496 with the help of Krishna Gopal as also a mechanic Mohan Suthar and on this converted truck they obtained a fitness certificate after getting it inspected by Bagh Singh M.T.O. The police after completing the investigations put up a challan for offences u/ss 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 424 and 403 I.P.C. against Harjinder Singh and Manjeet Singh. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh before whom the challan was put up took cognizance of the offences against these two accused persons on 31. 7. 82 when he directed that the case may be registered and also passed orders regarding the bail of the two accused persons. The matter then went on for further proceedings. Copies of the challan papers were given to the accused and it was then fixed for considering the question of framing charges against the two accused persons on 15 10.82. While thus considering the papers for the purpose of framing charges, the learned Magistrate formed an opinion that these offences could not have been committed by the two accused put up by the police before him without the connivence and conspiracy of Krishna Gopal, the registered owner of RJQ 6469, Bagh Singh the M. T. O. and Chandra Bhushan D T. O. who issued the fitness certificate on the basis of the report of Bagh Singh. He, therefore, took cognizance of the offences u/ss 467, 468 and 471 read with 120 B.I.P.C. against these three persons by his order dated 15. 10. 82 and directed bailable warrants to be issued in their names. The accused Bagh Singh and Chandra Bhushan have challenged this order by the present application u/s 482 Cr. P. C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P. P. and have gone through the record.
5. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once when on the police report put up before the learned Magistrate, he had taken cognizance of the offences against the two acc
(3) Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1967 SC 1167)
(4) Hareram vs. Tikaram (AIR 1978 SC 1568)
(2) Mahendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1984 RLW 172)
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.