Honble SAXENA, J. - This petition field u/s .482 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 17.12.91 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby he framed charges for the offences u/ss.147, 452, 302 r/w 149 IPC against the petitioners.

(2). Briefly, the facts giving rise to this petition are that on a written report dated 27.3.89 submitted by the complainant Omprakash , a case was registered at police station, Sujangarh against eleven persons including the petitioners for the offences u/ss.147, 148, 452, 302/149 IPC. However after investigation, the police submitted the challan against nine accused persons only. It was stated that as regards the petitioners, no offence was made out against them. Accordingly, they were not challenged. The learned MJM, Sujangarh committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. On 21.8.89, an application was filed by the complainant under sec. 190 (3) Cr.P.C. to the effect that the names of the petitioners find mention in the FIR; that the conten of the FIR have been duly corroborated by the complainant Omprakash and injured Smt. Rekha Devi in their police statements dt. 27.3.89, which were recorded immediately after the occurrence and that in those statements, they have clearly stated that petitioners Smt. Roshni and Mehboobdi also accompanied the other accused persons and participated in the incident but the Investigating Officer without any rhyme or reason, did not file challan against them and, therefore, cognizance be also taken against the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 26.9.89 took cognizane against the petitioners for the said offences and issued bailable warrants to ensure their presence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 452/89 u/s.482 Cr. P.C in this court which was later on not pressed by them. Therefore, this court by its order dt. 4.2.91 dismissed the said misc. petition as not pressed observing that it would be open for the petitioners to raise all the objections before the trial court at the time of framing charge. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge after hearing the parties and perusing the challan papers by his impugned order dt. 17.12.91 ordered for framing charge against them for the offences u/ss. 147, 452, 302 r/w 149 IPC and in pursuance thereof, a charge was framed on 8.1.92. Hence this petition.

(3). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the record of the lower courts in extenso. The first contention of Mr. Garg is that admittedly, no challan was filed against the petitioners and the learned Magistrate had neither taken cognizance against the petitioners nor committed the case against them; that thereafter the learned Sessions Judge without recording any evidence took cognizance against the petitioners under Sec. 319 Cr. P.C, which was ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in framing the charge against them. In my considered opinion, this argument is misplaced and misconceived and the same must abort in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kishan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar. (1), wherein it has been held that on a plain reading of Sec. 193 Cr.P.C. once a case is committed to the court of Session by a Magistrate under the Cr. P.C, the restriction placed on the powers of the court of Session to take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction gets lifted, thereby investing the court of Session complete and unfettered jurisdiction of the court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, which would include the summoning of the person or persons, whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material available on record. Therefore, the moment of time, the Magistrate commits the case u/s.209 Cr.P.C to the court of Session, the bar of Sec. 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document