1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1186/2010 (Keshri Chand Vs. State & Anr.) Date of Order : 11.08.2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Narpat Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially after filing FIR against the petitioner a thorough investigation was made by the Police and final report was filed. The said final report was accepted by the concerned Magistrate, against which, a revision petition was preferred by the complainant in the year 2001. The said revision petition was registered as criminal revision No.37/2001 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali vide order dated 6.12.2001 remitted the case to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh after considering entire evidence in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said order passed by revisional Court, the matter was again considered and decided by learned magistrate and again final report was accepted. Again complainant preferred a revision 2 petition No.34/2003 before the Sessions Judge, Pali whereby the revisional Court again remitted the matter to the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 26.8.2003 for considering and deciding the case after providing opportunity of hearing to the counsel for complainant. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner appeared before the concerned Magistrate before deciding the matter for taking cognizance and as per petitioner he has raised the objections with regard to limitation. In my opinion, at that stage, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file any application with regard to limitation. However, the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate before taking cognizance against him and learned Magistrate after considering the petitioner's contention took cognizance and held that matter is within limitation and issued summons against the petitioners. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier orders passed by the revision Court in the year 2001 and 2003 were illegal because both the orders passed without providing opportunity of hearing. In my opinion, the petitioner has waived his right because after remand he himself appeared before the Magistrate and filed an application before passing the order of cognizance in which the objections raised by the 3 petitioner with regard to limitation was considered. Now, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by impugned order 10.10.2007 and this misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2010 after lapse of more than three years. In my opinion when cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court then the petitioner is required to raise his all objections before the trial Court. In this view of the matter, this misc. petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to raise his objections afresh because cognizance has been taken against the petitioner vide impugned order dated 10.10.2007 if the proceedings in pursuance of said cognizance is still pending. It is made clear that petitioner will be at liberty to raise his all grounds and objections at the time of framing charge against him and it is expected from the trial Court that at the time of framing charge, the grounds and objections raised by the petitioner shall be decided first by speaking order. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J arun