1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.728/2008 PANNEY SINGH V. KISHAN SINGH & STATE. DATE OF ORDER: 10-09-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. K.S. Rathore, for Petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumbhat for Respondent No.1. Mr. JPS Choudhary, PP, for the State-Respondent No.2. Preferring this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of cognizance for the offence of Section 341, IPC, taken against him vide order dated 20.12.2006 by Judicial Magistrate, Sojat city. Brief relevant facts seem to be that on complaint of Respondent No.2 dated 24.07.2003, FIR No.82/03 registered for the offences of Sections 341, 504, 451 and 323, IPC, and negative FR submitted - respondent No.1 complainant presented a protest petition on 20.12.2006 and after inquiry, on the basis of statements etc, cognizance for the offence of Section 341, IPC, in Criminal Case No. 672/2007. This order of cognizance is upheld by the judgment of 26.04.2008 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District – Pali in Revision No.05/2007. On behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection is raised as to maintainability of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.. Contended that as the revision petition as preferred by the petitioner and rejected, so this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., of the nature like revision for an 2 order in revision petition is not maintainable and in support of the contention, reliance is placed on (i) 1993 Cr.L.R.(S.C.) P.189 Dharampal & Others v. Smt. Ramsri & Others, (ii) 2007 AIR SCW 4998, Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (iii) 2008 (2) RCC 679, Sumer Sinth Meena v. Rajulal & Others, & (iv) 2008 (3) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 1074, Satya Narain Gupta v. The State of Rajasthan & Another. On behalf of the petitioner contended that in such cases, petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is maintainable and in support of the contention, reliance is placed on (i) Dr. Hari Kishan Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1987 P.440, (ii) Ram Nath v. The State of Rajasthan, 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 365, (iii) Daleep Singh v. Smt. Magan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.)484, (iv) Pagla Baba v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1957 Orissa 130, (v) P.K.Choudhary v. Commander, 2008 AIR SC 1937, and (vi) Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, AIR 1997 SC 987. Suffice it to mention that there is no absolute blanket bar – maintainability in such cases may depend upon the other relevant material. On behalf of the petitioner argued that (1) after investigation, FIR found to be of no substance – rather error – this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. (2) Cognizance is not within the mandatory period of limitation. (3) No application for condonation of delay and even if any such order is to be only after affording an opportunity of hearing to accused. (4) Essential elements of Section 341 are missing. (5) Alleged incident is of July, 2007, punishable with a month simple imprisonment and maximum find Rs.500/-, so it is 3 not in the interest of justice that procedure be continued. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that complaint by respondent No.2 was preferred well within time of limitation and delay exclusively and due to reason beyond control or not due to complainant – learned Magistrate was also conscious of this delay and he has rightly recorded reasons for condoning delay - all essential ingredients for the offence of Section 341 are at least prima facie made out. Further contended that other facts are not to be analyzed in detail in such petition, particularly when revision petition also stands dismissed. Considered arguments and perused copies of the proceedings and statements etc. Incident is said to be of July 23, 2003 and FIR is alleged to have been lodged on the next day ie July 24th – after submission of police report as per order-sheet, protest petition submitted on 28.02.2005 ie within one year of alleged incident. Thereafter, time elapsed for the reason as per order-sheets. Learned Magistrate himself has mentioned in his order reasons for delay for cognizance which are not imputed to the complainant. Looking to the statements recorded during inquiry, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material to order cognizance. Looking to the continuation of proceedings, it would not be in the fitness of the things to further analyze the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. scd (C.M.TOTLA), J. 4