[2025:RJ-JP:21101] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1456/2016 1. Sher Singh @ Vijendra Kumar Meena son of Shri Ramphool, aged about 17 years & 7 months, Resident of Chharoda, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) Minor, through his uncle Shri Ramkaran Meena son of Shri Omkar Meena, Resident of Chharoda, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 2. Shiv Prasad son of Shri Shankar Lal Meena, aged 18 years, resident of Chharoda, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Accused Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ---Respondent 2. Harkesh son of Shri Badri Lal Meena, Resident of Chharoda, Police Station Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AAAG None present for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/05/2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners-accused aggrieved from order dated 01.02.2016 in Sessions Case No.114/2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereby at the stage of charge in trial against accused Ramhari, additionally taken cognizance against both the petitioners under Section 366 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated [2025:RJ-JP:21101] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1456/2016] by victim. He further referred the police report and findings in charge-sheet and submitted that after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Ramhari for committing offence under Section 366 of IPC. He further submits that after filing of charge- sheet by police, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur has taken cognizance on 26.09.2015 and when this matter was fixed before the Sessions Court then an application under Sections 193 and 319 of CrPC was filed by the Public Prosecutor on 18.12.2015 and the trial Court without any additional evidence passed on order of cognizance against the petitioners. He submitted that one of the petitioners is less than 18 years of age and the trial Court without considering the reasons assigned by police has passed an order of cognizance which means the trial Court has overlooked the grounds of non-involvement mentioned by police. At last, he submitted that the parties have compromised the matter and victim has filed an affidavit before this Hon’ble Court to allow the instant revision petition. He also referred statement of prosecutrix recorded as PW-12 before the trial Court in matter tried against Ramhari and submitted that she has turned hostile. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. The respondent-complainant remained absent after service of notice. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. In a matter arising out of FIR No.317/2014 P.S. Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur under Sections 366 and 379 of IPC, the police has filed a charge-sheet against Ramhari under Section 366 of [2025:RJ-JP:21101] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1456/2016] IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur after taking cognizance against Ramhari has committed the matter on 26.09.2015. During pendency at the stage of charge before learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, an application under Sections 193 and 319 of CrPC was filed by learned Public Prosecutor and same was allowed on 01.02.2016 and learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance under Section 366 of IPC against both the petitioners. 6. A perusal of record indicate that on basis of a written report filed by husband of prosecutrix on 24.07.2014, FIR No.317/2014 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur. After recovery of victim, her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded and she named three persons but she specifically named two persons Ramhari and Sheru @ Sher Singh though not aware about name of third person but the trial Court on basis of statement of witnesses recorded by police drawn a conclusion that the person named as S.P. meant for petitioner No.2 Shiv Prasad. 7. Herein, the material on record indicate that except the statement of victim, there is no other evidence on record to justify involvement of the petitioners. After a detailed investigation, police has not found involvement of any of these two petitioners though both of them were named in FIR by complainant (husband of prosecutrix). The complainant is not an eye-witness 8. The Public Prosecutor has filed an application under Sections 319 & 193 of CrPC but Section 319 is not applicable at this stage of the instant case, as no additional evidence was recorded by the trial Court. The only provision applicable is invocation of power under Section 193 of CrPC. [2025:RJ-JP:21101] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1456/2016] 9. Section 193 of CrPC empowers the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction when a case is committed to it. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharampal Vs. State of Haryana : (2014) 3 SCC 306 and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2014) 3 SCC 92 has held that the Sessions Judge has a power to take cognizance under Section 193 of CrPC. 10. In view of aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge has power to take cognizance under Section 193 of CrPC despite the fact that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance on 26.09.2015. Thus, the Sessions Judge was within his domain to consider application under Section 193 of CrPC. 11. Now comes the merits of the case. When we consider the material on record, then it is apparent on record that except the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC, no other material is available to justify involvement of any of petitioner. Both the petitioners were named in FIR but the complainant is not an eye-witness and moreover when prosecutrix was recovered, she named only two persons and third person with a different name. During investigation, the police has not found any involvement of these petitioners and there is no corroboration of the incident from any other witness. Therefore, without any sufficient material, learned trial Court has passed an order of cognizance under Section 193 of CrPC. 12. An affidavit of prosecutrix is also placed on record denying the involvement of both the petitioners. This prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court on 23.08.2017 in trial against [2025:RJ-JP:21101] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1456/2016] Ramhari and she has turned hostile, not supported the case of prosecution. 13. Having considered aforesaid, the instant criminal revision petition is liable to be allowed. 14. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 01.02.2016 in Sessions Case No.114/2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur is set aside and the application under Section 193/319 CrPC is hereby rejected and both the petitioners are hereby discharged. 15. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/44