[2025:RJ-JP:21111] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1294/2023 1. Pooran S/o Somraj 2. Varun S/o Chauthi 3. Pintu S/o Manohar 4. Damodar S/o Somraj All are Resident of Leeloti, Police Station Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P 2. Heeralal S/o Kajodya, Resident Of Leeloti Police Station Hindaun City Dsitrict Karauli (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 14/05/2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners-accused (1) Pooran, (2) Varun, (3) Pintu and (4) Damodar aggrieved from order dated 12.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.85/2016 (51/2014) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hindaun City, District Karauli, whereby an application under Section 319 CrPC, filed by respondent No.2- complainant was allowed to take cognizance under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 325 and 308 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon grounds of revision petition submits that after registration of FIR [2025:RJ-JP:21111] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1294/2023] by complainant, the matter was investigated in detail by police and police has filed a charge-sheet against Mahesh but involvement of present petitioners in the incident was ruled out. He further submitted that neither in FIR nor in statement under Section 161 CrPC, the overt act of any of the petitioner was mentioned. He further submitted that afterwards improvement in the statement and changing version by complainant and his witness, some the overt act against present petitioners were alleged. He further submitted that injured Heeralal has sustained five injuries and all were assigned to accused Mahesh. He further referred the police investigation and submitted that the police has not corroborated the allegations after investigation. He submitted that the entire allegations are false and the trial Court without considering the reasons assigned in police investigation, in particular material on record has taken cognizance only on basis of oral evidence of interested witnesses. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that all these four petitioners were named in FIR and their overt act was also explained by witnesses in their statement. He further submitted that the injured has named the petitioners and the police with the faulty investigation has saved these persons from trial. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On basis of a report dated 18.02.2014 about incident of 17.02.2014, FIR No.89/2014 under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 447 of IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Hindaun City, [2025:RJ-JP:21111] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1294/2023] District Karauli and after investigation, police has filed a charge- sheet against Mahesh under Sections 341, 325, 323 and 308 of IPC. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and on an application under Section 319 CrPC, filed by respondent-complainant, taken cognizance against the petitioners. 6. A perusal of Ex.P-3 FIR indicate that for incident of 17.02.2014, report was registered on 18.02.2014 by Deepa Ram (brother of injured). As per report, overt act of only Mahesh was mentioned though presence of all petitioners were alleged by complainant. The police has investigated the matter and found involvement of Mahesh and recommended a charge-sheet against him only. The injured was examined as PW-2 before the trial Court and his examination-in-chief indicate that all four petitioners with Mahesh had assaulted him but attribution and assignment about injuries with specific assault was made only against Mahesh. We have considered cross-examination of PW-2. PW-2 has further stated that Ram Singh and Jagram have rescued him. Ram Singh was examined as PW-3 and we have considered statement of Ram Singh. The discrepancies in the statements of PW-3 and PW-2 were considered by us. The complainant PW-1 is not an eye- witness. Another named person Jagram was not examined by prosecution before disposal of said application. 7. Having considered aforesaid, it is apparent on record that no specific overt act or assignment of specific injury was proved against any of the petitioner, sufficient to take cognizance under Section 319 CrPC. The trial Court has to consider the provision of Section 319 of CrPC wherein an order of cognizance is required to be passed after cross-examination of witnesses. The injury report [2025:RJ-JP:21111] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1294/2023] of Heeralal also indicate that there were five injuries and same have to be corroborated with his evidence. A perusal of material does not disclose role and involvement of present petitioners. Therefore, the trial Court has committed serious error while taking cognizance against the petitioners. 8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 is set aside. As a result, an application under Section 319 CrPC is hereby rejected and the petitioners are discharged accordingly. 9. Misc. application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/86