[2025:RJ-JP:49587]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 470/2008

1. Akhtar S/o Shri Rehmat;

2. Mushtaq S/o Shri Mehmood;

R/o Village Gangora, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan.

2. Ameen S/o Shri Ibrahim, R/o Village Gangora, District Bharatpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 238/2008

1. Khurshid S/o Hurmat

2. Rajuddin S/o Nizam Both R/o Gangora, Ps Pahadi, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP

2. Amin Khan S/o Ibrahim, R/o F-9, Rani Garden, Shastri Nagar, East Delhi 110 031.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 496/2008

1. Akhtar S/o Shri Rehmat;

2. Mushtaq S/o Shri Mehmood;

R/o Village Gangora, District Bharatpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan.

2. Amin S/o Shri Ibrahim, R/o Village Gangora, District Bharatpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit, Adv.

Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. (Revision No.238/2008)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP Mr. Azad Ahmed, Adv. for respondent No.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

27/11/2025

1. These matters have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 04.02.2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.2, Bharatpur Camp Kaman in Session Case No.9/2006 (Old Case No.58/2003) whereby the learned Trial Judge while allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant/respondent No.2, summoned the present petitioners as additional accused to face the trial for offences under Sections 148, 341, 324, 307, 302 R/w Section 149 IPC and also issued arrest warrant against petitioners Akhtar & Mushtaq to ensure their presence. By Cr. Misc. Petition No.470/2008, the petitioners are challenging the order of issuing arrest warrant against them.

2. Since, these matters are related to same incident and are against the same order, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 01.10.2001, complainant Amin Khan submitted a written report at Police Station Pahadi to the effect that due to an old animosity, at about 6:30 AM when his brother Haroon, his son Abbas and other family members were sitting on a cot in the house, at that time suddenly 35-40 accused persons including the present petitioners came armed with weapons like pistol, gun, stone, lathi etc and started beating the family members of the complainant. The accused persons also fired gunshot. On the said written report, Police registered FIR No.202/2001 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 341, 323 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, injured Hussain died, therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet only against 37 accused persons while exonerating the present petitioners.

4. During trial, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant for impleading the present petitioners as accused in the matter. The application was dismissed by the Trial Judge vide order dated 05.12.2003. The complainant filed a revision against the order dated 05.12.2003 before this Court, which was allowed on 13.07.2004 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Judge for deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh.

5. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties summoned the petitioners as additional accused and also issued arrest warrant vide order dated 04.02.2008 to ensure their presence. Hence, these misc. petition and revision petitions against the order of summoning the petitioners as additional accused and issuing arrest warrant against them.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Trial Judge has committed a grave error of facts and law in summoning the petitioners as additional accused vide impugned order dated 04.02.2008 as on 14.07.2004 all the other accused persons in