Honble JAIN, J.—This misc. petition u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dt. 25.5.89 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Merta whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner u/ss. 342, 34, 330, 166, 376/114, 376/511 and 114 I.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Ramlal while in custody sent complaints agtinst the petitioner and some other police officials including Dy. S.P. Premnath Soni albging that these persons tortured him and his brother in-law Narayan and also stated that he was made to have sexual intercourse with his mother Moolki and his brother in-law Narayan was thrown on his sister in-law Patashi to commit sexual intercourse. Thereupon, a first information report no. 152/88 was recorded against the petitioner and investigation was conducted by several police officer. A charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and some other police officials u/s. 330/34 I.P.C. The petitioner and the other co-accused Premnath moved applications before the learned court below stating that from the challan papers no case is made out against them. The learned Magistrate, while dismissing the applications vide his order dt. 25.5.89 took cognizance against the petitioner as aforesaid. Hence, this misc. petition.

3. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false and concocted complaint has been filed against the petitioner by the complainant to save himself and the press media high lighted the matter. He also submits that the learned trial court without considering the evidence available on record and also without considering the reports submitted by D.I.G., C.I.D. (Vigilance) and S.P.,C.I.D. (CB) took cognizance against the petitioner u/ss. 342, 34, 330, 166, 376/114, 376/511 and 114 I.P.C. beyond the challan papers which has resulted into abuse of the process of the court particularly when the cognizance takea against the main accused I remnath has already been quashed. He, therefore, prays that tie impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner deserves to be set aside under the inherent power of this Court. He has placed reliance on Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari (1).

4. Mr. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor submits that no interference is called for in the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record very carefully.

6. It is no doubt true that the learned Magistrate is competent to take cognizance against accused if there is a prima facie case and if the learned Magistrate does not find any case against the petitioner, he may discharge the accused at appropriate stage. Generally, this Court is slow to interfere with the order of taking cognizance in a petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. But if the Magistrate has taken cognizance without considering the material on record and no case is made out to convict the accused on the basis of material then certainly to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and this Court can quash the cognizance under the inherent power of this Court.

7. In the instant case on the complaint of one Ramlal a first information report No. 1 52/88 was registered on 15.10.88 for the incident taken place before ten months and evidence u/s. 161 Cr. P.C. of several witnesses were recorded by Shri R.N. Gaur, S.P., CID (CB) Camp Merta viz. statement of Ramlal was recorded on 15.10.88, statement of Jagdish Singh was recorded on 19.10.88, statements of Moolki, Chothu, Narayan, Patashi were also recorded on 29.10.88, statement of Ganesh was recorded on 19.11.88, Keshia on 30.10.88, Sugansingh on 15.11-88, Jora Ram Bagaria on 9.12.88, Himmat Singh and Gopi Singhs statements were recorded ok 18.10.88, Kaluram on 20.11.88, Gangaram on 9.12.88, Nazir khan on 18.10.88, Jora Ramon 16.11.88. On the basis of newspaper report in public interest litigation bearing D.B.C.W. Petition No. 3316/88, a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dt. 3.11.88 directed to take e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document