1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Brij Mohan & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & ors. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1009/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 3rd September, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Anurag Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. B.K. Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: By this revision petition filed under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. challenge has been made to an order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindauncity District Karauli whereby cognizance has been taken against the accused-petitioner. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present revision petition are that FIR No.344/2007 was registered at police station Hindauncity on the basis of a parcha bayan of Dhan Singh for the offence under sections 341, 323/34 IPC and section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was alleged in the report that on the day while his uncle Raghunath and Shivdayal were coming from Mahu, the accused-petitioners along with another person, namely; Jai Singh intercepted them and assaulted them. Thereupon, the complainant and other persons intervened 2 to which they were also assaulted. It was further averred that the above named accused persons were not allowing the complainant party to take water from the water tank and prior to the day of incident, the cousin of the complainant namely; Tej Prakash was also assaulted. An FIR was also registered in relation to same incident on 11.4.2007 being FIR No.343/2007 in the concerned police station on the basis of the written report submitted by petitioner Brij Mohan wherein it was alleged that while his son was going towards junble with goats, he was encircled by opposite party including Dhan Singh and other family members and was assaulted by Jai Singh with sticks and gandasis, as a result of which Jai Singh died at the spot and when the petitioner and others tried to intervene, they were also given beating. After the incident, the accused persons mentioned in the report ran away. It was also alleged that Jai Singh was assaulted on account of altercation took place a day prior to the incident. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC. The matter is pending trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindauncity wherein charges have been framed against Dhan Singh and other accused for offence under sections 302 and 149 IPC and also other offences under the IPC. In the FIR No.344/2007, the police after investigation filed a negative final report no.175/2007 wherein it was specifically 3 stated that the complainant party was aggressor. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the above FIR on submitting protest petition recorded statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance vide order dated 3.7.2008. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed. It is contended that the courts below have committed serious illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioners and others. It is also contended that the reasons given in the final report were not considered by the learned trial court, therefore, the order impugned requires to be set aside. Alternatively, it was also contended that the accused-petitioners have been summoned through non-bailable warrants whereas in the facts and circumstances of the case they should have been summoned through bailable warrants. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the cognizance in the matter has rightly been taken looking to the specific role assigned to the accused-petitioners. It is contended that in the statements recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. involvement of the accused-petitioners was found in a heinous crime of murder. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the material available on record. It is not desirable at this stage to comment upon the merits of the case but suffice it to say that in the present case on the basis of material which was placed before the learned trial 4 court and on the basis of the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance in the matter. It cannot be disputed that at the time of taking cognizance normally the evidence on record is not to be scrutinized minutely. If the court primafacie finds the involvement of the accused in a case, then cognizance is required to be taken. The learned trial court has passed a detailed order taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners. Now, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioners are required to be summoned through bailable warrants instead of non-bailable warrants. It is to be seen that in the instant case cognizance has been taken on filing protest petition, therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused-petitioners are required to be summoned through bailable warrants instead of non-bailable warrants. In view of the fore-going discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners is maintained and the part of the order by which the accused-petitioners have been summoned through non- bailable warrants is set aside. The accused-petitioners shall now be summoned through bailable warrants instead of non-bailable warrants. Accordingly, the revision petition stands disposed of. (S.P. PATHAK,J) 5