1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 552/2007 (Babbabhai and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of order : 01.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. P.K.Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. BY THE COURT The notice of respondent No.2 received unserved with the report that he has been murdered. An FIR No.33 dated 12.8.2004 Police Station, Bakhasar, district Barmer has been annexed with the notice registering a case under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of the respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and public prosecutor for the State. By the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 504 r/w 147 IPC. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 lodged a report being FIR No.23/2000 at Police Station, Bakhasar. After investigation, the police did not find any case and submitted a negative final report. However, the trial court on a protest petition took the cognizance of the offences noticed above. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even the material placed before the trial court is taken on its face value, no offence is made out and police by a well reasoned conclusion came to the conclusion that no such occurrence has taken place. I have carefully gone through the material available on record. In my view, the trial court was not justified in proceedings against the petitioners in absence of there being any sufficient material against them and even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served to allow the order impugned to stand for the reason that the person who alleged that he was wrongfully restrained or was caused simple hurt or abused, is no more in the world as he has already been murdered as per the report and the FIR placed on record. In the circumstances, 3 therefore, to allow the order impugned to stand would be nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 14.1.2003 passed by the trial court is set aside. The proceeding against the petitioners stands quashed. Stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp