S. No. 223

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

CRR No. 52/2017

IA No. 1/2017

Nazir Hussain

...Petitioner(s)

Through :- Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta, Advocate

v/s

<

Raqoob Azam

.....Respondent(s)

't

Through :- None

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated

05.08.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Mendhar whereby the

respondent has been discharged in criminal complaint no. 159/complaint for

offences punishable under Sections 341/323/420 RPC on 05.08.2017. The order

impugned has been challenged in this revision on the ground that the trial Court

after recording the preliminary statement of the complainant and his witnesses in

the complaint filed by him postponed the process and referred the matter to SHO

Police Station, Gursai, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for inquiry and the SHO

concerned after inquiry, submitted the report.

2.

On 29.07.2015 the trial court took cognizance against the respondent

under Sections 341/323 RPC and issued the process against him. On appearance

of the accused-respondent, the statement of the complainant was recorded on

29.09.2015 and statement of one of the witnesses was recorded on 15.01.2016.

2 CRR No. 52/2017

The last and final opportunity was granted to the complainant to produce the

witnesses and right to produce the evidence was closed on 21.07.2016. He

thereafter made an application before the trial court for arraying Abdul Qayoom

as an accused and the application was later on rejected after calling the objections

and hearing the parties. The trial court invoked the provision of Section 250

Cr.P.C and issued show cause notice to him. The said order dated 05.08.2017 has

been challenged in this revision petition on the ground that despite there being

sufficient evidence of involvement of Abdul Qayoom, he was not arrayed as an

accused. Police on inquiry also found him to be involved in the commission of

crime.

3.

The trial court had no occasion but to issue process against him.

Complainant in his statement also named him during the examination before the

court. On his application, the trial court ought to have arrayed him as an accused.

Instead of arraying him as an accused, showcause notice has been issued to him

by wrongly resorting to provision of Section 250 Cr.P.C. It is on these grounds

the order is sought to be set-aside while exercising the powers of revision.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the record on the file and have also gone through the order whereby the

trial court has rejected the application for arraying Abdul Qayoom as accused.

The trial court while dismissing the complaint had issued a notice to the

complainant to showcause as to why he should not pay compensation to the

accused. So far as the rejection of the complaint and rejection of an application of

the complainant for impleading Abdul Qayoom as an accused in the case are

3 CRR No. 52/2017

concerned, I after going through the record do not find any illegality committed

by the trial court and the same has been passed after appreciating the evidence

produced before it.

5.

The trial court had considered the evidence meticulously and has

returned its findings on the said evidence. To interfere, while exercising the

powers of revision, the petitioner ought to have shown some illegality being

committed by the trial court but has failed to point out any illegality in passing

the order impugned.

6.

There is no ground warranting