[2025:RJ-JP:10603] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1502/2022 Bhagirath Singh S/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Doodwa Police Station Balara Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Basant Kumar S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Resident Of Village Bidasar, Police Station Balaran, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj) 3. Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Shri Ratan Lal, Resident Of Village Bidasar, Police Station Balaran, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj) 4. Smt. Rinku W/o Shri Subhash D/o Shri Ratan Lal, Resident Of Village Bidasar, Police Station Balaran, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj) 5. Ratan Lal S/o Shri Nand Ram, Resident Of Village Bidasar, Police Station Balaran, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaggu Ram Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Shamsul Aarefin HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/03/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner- complainant aggrieved from order dated 20.08.2022 in Sessions Case No. 10/2019 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Basant Kumar and arises out of FIR No. 100/2019 dated 29.06.2019, PS Balara, District Sikar, wherein an application under Section 319 [2025:RJ-JP:10603] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1502/2022] Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner-complainant for taking cognizance against additional accused and also against charge-sheeted accused in additional provision, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon judgment in case of Kishun Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (1993) 2 SCC 16 and subsequent Constitution Bench judgment in case of Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2013 SC 3018 submitted that after committal of case to learned Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, later is competent to take cognizance under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar has dismissed the application as if under order of cognizance can not be passed under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents and he submits that there is no grounds to take cognizance against respondents No.3 to 5. He referred the investigation made by police and submitted that reason of death was asphyxia and deceased herself committed suicide due to her personal reasons. He further referred the evidence on record and submitted that no case for cognizance under Section 304-B IPC is made out against respondent No.2-Basant Kumar. At last, he submitted that learned Trial Court after considering the judgment of this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the application and there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:10603] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1502/2022] 5. On basis of a written complainant by complainant-Bhagirath Singh dated 29.06.2014, FIR No.100/2019 was registered at P.S. Balara, District Sikar under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, but after investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against Basant Kumar under Section 306 IPC. The complainant has named Basant Kumar and Santosh Devi as the person responsible for death of his daughter. After filing of charge-sheet, same was committed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, District Sikar on 19.09.2019 after taking cognizance under Section 306 IPC against Basant Kumar on basis of charge-sheet filed by police. On 19.09.2019, neither complainant was present nor any application under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. was filed. 6. When the matter was before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar then an application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. was filed and same was dismissed on 20.08.2022 after placing reliance upon judgment of this Court in case of Bajrang Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2018 (2) RCC (Raj.) 599, wherein it was held that once a cognizance order has been passed under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. then no subsequent cognizance order under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. can be passed. The impugned order dated 20.08.2022 clearly indicate that learned Trial Court has neither considered merits of the case nor decided application on the basis of grounds mentioned by complainant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar has decided application only on ground of non-maintainability as previous order of cognizance was passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, District Sikar, 19.09.2019. [2025:RJ-JP:10603] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1502/2022] 7. In case of Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra) while answering a reference, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the view expressed in case of Kishun Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (supra) that the Sessions Court has jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to take cognizance of offence of persons not named as offenders, but whose complicity in the case would be evidence from the materials available on record. The Sessions Judge may summon those persons shown in column 2 of police report to stand trial along with those already named therein, upon committal under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. but without recording any evidence. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has misread the judgment in case of Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra) while dismissing application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. The illegality and perversity is apparent on record as the Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application without application of mind only on the ground of maintainability. 9. The judgment in case of Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra) and also another Constitution Bench judgment in case of Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 were considered in case of Nahar Singh Vs. State of UP (2022) 5 SCC 295 and same has made it clear that the Sessions Court has a power to consider application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. as laid down in case of Kishun Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (supra). 10. In view of aforesaid, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar has committed serious error while dismissing the application, therefore, the revision petition is liable [2025:RJ-JP:10603] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1502/2022] to be allowed but the Trial Court has not considered the application on merits, and we have no option except to remand the application for consideration on merits. 11. In view of aforesaid, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 20.08.2022 in Sessions Case No.10/2019 is hereby set aside and the application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. is remitted to the Trial Court for decision afresh considering that the Sessions Court has a power to decide the application on its own merits. 12. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /212-S