(1 of 5)

[CRLR-324/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 324/2021

Nahar Singh S/o Panne Singh, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste

Rajput, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Sonai Maji, P.S. Sadar Pali,

Dist. Pali.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan.

2.

Chain Singh S/o Ram Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Sonai

Maji, P.s. Sadar Pali, Dist. Pali.

3.

Bhoor Singh @ Bhupendra Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, By

Caste Rajput, R/o Sonai Maji, P.s. Sadar Pali, Dist. Pali.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

Mr. Pravin Vyas

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

12/05/2022

The matter comes up on an application (IA No.01/22) for

preponement of the date.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is

allowed.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter has been heard finally.

This criminal revision petition has been preferred claiming

the following reliefs:

“1. That your lordship kindly allow this revision petition of the

present petitioner and quash the order dated 25.02.2021 passed

by Session Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No.132/2020 State vs

(2 of 5)

[CRLR-324/2021]

Heer Singh & ors., FIR no.148/2020, P.S. Sadar Pali, District Pali.

Offences u/s 147, 148, 302, 120B IPC.

2. That the Hon’ble Court shall take the cognizance against the

non-petitioner no.2 & 3 and shall order to non-petitioner no.2 &

3 to appear before learned trial court & face trial.

3. That any other relief may kindly be award to the Petitioner

accordingly to Law.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR,

which was lodged on 09.08.2000 by the father of the deceased, it

was alleged that he has received an information that his son Raju

Singh along with Jeevan Singh and Mangu Singh were guarding

the crops at night whereas in the morning, he was informed that

at the liquor shop his son has been beaten to death. The

complainant also reported that his son was accompanied by

Jeevan Singh and as per Jeevan Singh, one Chain Singh, Bhoor

Singh @ Bhupendra Singh, Dheer Singh, Arjun Singh and two

other persons have caused the beating, which resulted into the

death of the complainant’s son Raju Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the

threshold itself, the complainant basing his allegation upon the

version of Jeevan Singh has included the name of the respondent

No.2 Chain Singh and respondent No.3 Bhoor Singh @ Bhupendra

Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

thereafter, the eyewitness Jeevan Singh, in his testimony rendered

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., has again reiterated the same

facts, which were there in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once

there was a consistency in the allegations, then it was the duty of

the learned trial court to allow the application of the petitioner

(3 of 5)

[CRLR-324/2021]

under Section 193 Cr.P.C., but the same was erroneously rejected

by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated

25.02.2021.

Section 193 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session.- Except

as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law

for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take

cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction

unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under

this Code.”

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the application has been rightly rejected by the learned trial court

because in the initial statement, Jeevan Singh @ Jeevraj Singh

has not taken the name of the present respondents and after

thorough investigation, their names having been arrayed as

accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that there was

a test identification parade, in which, the accused arrayed have