Bhagirath Vs. Kana Ram & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 1998
Petitioner: Bhagirath
Respondent: Kana Ram & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 1998
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 14, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 307 – Proceedings under – Magistrate refus-ing to take cognizance of the offence – Crl. MP filed by State of Rajasthan in High Court, dismissed since no prima facie case was made out – High Court passing an order subsequently whereby Magistrate directed to take cognizance of the offence – Subsequent order passed without any notice to the accused – Whether correct. Held. No. Matter remitted to the High Court for redisposal. Impugned order of High Court quashed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Accused is the Appellant before us against an order of the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court dated 6.11.1997 directing that the cognizance should be taken for the offence committed under Section 307 IPC, which was passed even without hearing the accused.
2. It transpires from the records of this case that against the order of the Magistrate not taking cognizance under Section 307 IPC, the State of Rajasthan had moved the High Court in Crl.M.P No. 184/96 and that application was dismissed by order dated 21.11.1996, on coming to the conclusion that the Public Prosecu-tor has not been able to point out any prima facie evidence to show that a case under Section 307 IPC was made out.
3. We fail to understand, after the aforesaid order without even noticing the accused, how the High Court could pass the impugned order directing the Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are quashing the impugned order of the High Court since the same has been passed without even hearing the accused, and remit the matter to the High Court for redisposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The learned Chief Justice is requested to place this matter before a learned Judge other than the Judge who had passed the impugned order dated 6.11.1997.
4. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
1. Accused is the Appellant before us against an order of the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court dated 6.11.1997 directing that the cognizance should be taken for the offence committed under Section 307 IPC, which was passed even without hearing the accused.
2. It transpires from the records of this case that against the order of the Magistrate not taking cognizance under Section 307 IPC, the State of Rajasthan had moved the High Court in Crl.M.P No. 184/96 and that application was dismissed by order dated 21.11.1996, on coming to the conclusion that the Public Prosecu-tor has not been able to point out any prima facie evidence to show that a case under Section 307 IPC was made out.
3. We fail to understand, after the aforesaid order without even noticing the accused, how the High Court could pass the impugned order directing the Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are quashing the impugned order of the High Court since the same has been passed without even hearing the accused, and remit the matter to the High Court for redisposal after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The learned Chief Justice is requested to place this matter before a learned Judge other than the Judge who had passed the impugned order dated 6.11.1997.
4. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
