Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Gulam Hussain - Appellant
Versus
Amina Bano & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 236 of 2002
Decided On : March 22, 2002
The argument No.1 that the learned Judicial Magistrate was duty bound to record the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200, 202 Cr.P.C. stands rejected. (Para 13)
After filing of challan and commitment of case to the Court of Session, adding of some accused persons was not within his competence and power in the cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session. (Para 20)
(2). It arises in the following circumstances:-
The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint on 31.10.2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar (Churu) against the accused respondents No.1 to 8 for the offence under Sections 120- B, 302/109, 203 IPC stating inter-alia that on 15.8.1998, the accused respondents gave milk added with poison to his daughter Balkesh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) with an intention to kill her, but since deceased had suspicion, therefore, she did not accept that milk and this incident took place at Taranagar, a place of in-laws of deceased. However, the deceased was compelled to take milk added with poison and after about 8.15 a.m. on 15.8.1998, the condition of the deceased became deteriorated and, thereafter she was admitted in the hospital at Taranagar and later on, she was shifted to churu hospital, where she died. It was further stated in the complaint that on 15.8.1998, the accused respondents lodged a report in the Police Station Kotwali, Churu stating that deceased died because of some ailment. On that report, murg FIR under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Churu and during investigation, the learned S.D.M., Churu found that the milk added with poison was given to the deceased by her Jethani Aamina Bano (accused respondent No.1) and through letter dated 22.6.2000, the learned SDM, Churu made a request the S.P., Churu that FIR be registered against Amina Bano (accused respondent No.1) and, thereafter, FIR No.128 was registered at Police Station, Taranagar (Churu) on 1.8.2000 for the offence under Section 498A, 302 IPC. The police later on converted the case from 302 IPC to 306 IPC and 498A IPC and thus, a challan was filed against the accused respondent No.1 Aamina Bano for the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar and from where the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Churu) where Sessions No.25/2001 was registered and that sessions case was fixed on 13.7.2001 for arguments on charge.
It was further stated in the complaint that on 13.7.2001, the petitioner-complainant filed an application purporting to be under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. accompanied by several documents with the prayer that further investigation in that case be got conducted through CID (CB)/CBI and that application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Churu) through order dated 2.8.2001. Against the said order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Churu) dated 2.8.2001, the petitioner- complainant filed a revision before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Cr.Revision Petition No.430/2001 and this Court vide judgment dated 21.8.2001 dismissed summarily that revision petition holding inter-alia that during trial, if evidence comes, action can be taken under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Against the judgment of this Court dated 21.8.2001, the petitioner-complainant filed SLP before the Honble Supreme Court, which was registered as SLP (Cri.) No.3617/2001 and the Honble Supreme Court Court vide order dated 8.10.2001 dismissed that SLP as withdrawn.
Narrating all the above facts, the petitioner-complainant prayed in the complaint the cognizance be taken against the accused respondents including Aamina Bano against whom challan for the offence under Section 306 and 498-A IPC had already been filed, for the offence under Section 120-B, 302/149, 203 IPC.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taranagar (Churu) through order dated 8.11.2001 dismissed that complaint of the petitioner-complainant, after giving the following reasons:-
(1) That it is an admitted
3. Gopal Das Sindhi vs. State of Assam (AIR 1961 SC 986)
4. Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1998 SC 3148).–Followed.
2. Gude Lakshmi Basava Poornima vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1991(1) A.L.T. 368)
5. Ibrahim Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1999(1) RCC 383 = RLW 1999(2) Raj. 784)
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.