Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No.2- complainant and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 143, 452, 363, 364 & 365 IPC and issued arrest warrant against them.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.08.2012, complainant-respondent No.2 submitted a written report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that the accused persons, who were armed with deadly weapons, illegally entered the house and abducted his two minor sons namely Ashish and Aman and also threatened to murder them. On this report, Police registered FIR No.173/2012 and started investigation. On completion of investigation, Police filed charge- sheet against some accused persons. However, in respect of the present petitioners, Police filed a negative final report.
3. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed the charges against the charge-sheeted accused persons and commenced the tria
The court ruled that taking cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is improper when a negative final report exists, especially if the main accused have been convicted.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in rejecting an application to arraign additional accused due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing respect for trial court findings.
Taking cognizance requires cogent reasoning and credible evidence; reliance solely on uncorroborated testimony is insufficient.
No doubt, while exercising the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., Court has to exercise the said power with due care and caution and not to exercise the said power in a routine course but the materi....
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court.
The discretionary power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised based on strong and cogent evidence.
The trial court can summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only if there is more than a mere prima facie case supported by evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
