Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Man Singh S/O Megh Singh B/C Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:35024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2669/2019
Man Singh S/o Megh Singh R/o Village Ajan Police Station
Udhyog Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. Presently R/o Kailashpuri
Colony, Near Railway Station Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur
Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Kripal Singh S/o Rambhrosi, R/o Village Jagheena, Police
Station Udhyog Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur Raj.
3. Anil S/o Indramal, R/o D-145 Ranjeet Nagar, Police
Station Kotwali Bharatpur Raj.
4. Krishnamurari @ Banti S/o Indramal, R/o Ranjeet Nagar,
Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur Raj.
5. Himanshu S/o Harpal Singh R/o Police Thana Kotwali,
Distt. Bharatpur Raj.
6. Brijesh Saini S/o Bhajan Lal Saini R/o Suraj Pole Gate,
Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur Raj.
7. Rahul S/o Late Shri Maharaj Singh R/o Kailashpuri Colony,
Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Bharatpur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi with Mr. Anurodh Chaturvedi and Mr. Tej Kiran Nainpuriya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma with Ms. Shreya Hatila Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 26/08/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 15/09/2025 REPORTABLE (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:14:54 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:19:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35024] (2 of 7) [CRLR-2669/2019]
1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. calls in question the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 15/2019 (87/2019) whereby the trial court declined to exercise powers under Section 193 Cr.P.C to take cognizance of the offence against private respondents after committal proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sessions Court upon committal is fully competent to summon additional accused if the material on record discloses their involvement. It is argued that the learned trial court has wrongly concluded that since the cognizance of the offence has already been taken, a fresh cognizance cannot be taken. He contended that the learned trial court has not appreciated the correct legal aspect of the issue involved in this case because such summoning is not barred as Court takes cognizance of the offence and not of the offender and if during proceedings, it comes to the knowledge of the Court about the involvement of the other accused, Court has ample power to summon them, therefore, finding of trial court that cognizance cannot be taken twice is devoid of merit. It is further contended that on perusal of para 7 of the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has not given any cogent reason to arrive at the conclusion that no explicit evidence is available regarding involvement of the additional accused. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:14:54 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:19:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35024] (3 of 7) [CRLR-2669/2019]
(i) Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr : 2013 Cr. L.R (SC) 818,
(ii) Balveer Singh & another vs. State of Rajasthan and another : (2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 680,
(iii) Shodan Singh Thakur &Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan : 2017 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 423,
(iv) Laxman Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., : 2024 (2) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) 585
(v) Rajkumar Vs. State of Raj. & Anr., 2025 (1) CJ (Crl.) Raj. 548
(vi) Mukesh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2025 (2) CJ (Cri) (Raj.) 1043.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the private respondents supported the impugned order and argued that the scope of revision is very limited. The learned trial Court has rightly concluded that no sufficient material exists to take cognizance against additional accused. He thus submits that grounds of revision are not attracted. In support, he has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in Balveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2016) 6 SCC
680.
4. I have considered the rival submissions and scanned the record carefully.
5. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the court of Sessions from taking cognizance of offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate. Once the case is committed, the bar is lifted and the (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:14:54 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:19:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35024] (4 of 7) [CRLR-2669/2019] Sessions Court can take cognizance of the offence. The embargo contained in Section 193 Cr.P.C. is only till committal, once a case is committed under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court attains full power to take cognizance of the offence as a court of original jurisdiction.
6. In galore of precedents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the legal position of the points involved in the present revision petition.
7. In Raghuvans Dubey Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded:
"In our opinion once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence."
8. Similarly, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dharam Pal & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2013 Cr.L.R. SC 818 clarified the situation that the Sessions Court can take cognizance against the additional accused in exercise of the powers under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
9. The above view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is further fortified by the latest view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kallu Nat @ Mayank Kumar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2025 INSC 930 wherein it has been observed as under:-
"103. We summarize our final conclusion as under: -
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:14:54 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:19:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35024] (5 of 7) [CRLR-2669/2019]
(i) Both under Sections 209 and 193 respectively of the Code 1973 commitment is of, the "case" and not of the "accused" as distinguished from Section193(3) and Section 207A respectively of the old Code where commitment was of the "accused" and not the "case".
For committing a case there must be an offence and involvement of a person who committed the same. Even though the case is committed yet cognizance taken is of the offence and not the offender. Once the case in respect of the offence qua the accused, who are before the Court, is committed and cognizance is taken, the embargo under Section 193 regarding taking cognizance only by committal goes. Summoning additional persons will then be regarded as incidental to the cognizance already taken on committal and as, a part, of, the normal process that follows. A fresh committal of such person is not necessary.
(ii) ... ... ...
(iii) Once the Court takes cognizance of the offence (not of the offender), it becomes the Court's duty to find out the real offenders and if it comes to the conclusion that besides the persons put up for trial by the police some others are also involved in the commission of the crime, it is the Court's duty to summon them to stand trial along with those already named, since summoning them would only be part of the process of taking cognizance."
10. The contention that such summoning would amount to taking cognizance twice has been expressly rejected in all the above judicial pronouncements. Once cognizance of the offence is taken, summoning of additional accused is a procedural step and not a second cognizance.
11. In the present case, the trial court has recorded the reasoning that the persons mentioned in the application filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. were not committed by the Magistrate to this Court and no evidence has been recorded by the trial court, therefore, cognizance of a single offence cannot be taken twice. The above reasoning as such appears to be contrary to law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and amounts to abdication of the jurisdiction, therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:14:54 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:19:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35024] (6 of 7) [CRLR-2669/2019] learned court below erred in treating the summoning of accused as impermissible. The summoning would not amount to taking cognizance afresh but it is only a natural consequence of cognizance already taken of the offence.
Subsequent summoning of persons is only a procedural act flowing from the initial cognizance.
12. It is a trite law that cognizance against the same accused cannot be taken twice as held in the case of Balveer Singh (supra) however this judgment renders no assistance to counsel for the complainant inasmuch as in the said case two similar applications have been preferred by the appellant before the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court for adding additional accused whereas in the present case, the application has been preferred before the court of Sessions acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 Cr.P.C. after committal of the case by the Magistrate.
13. The trial Court has also recorded the finding that on the basis of material available on record, there is no explicit evidence against persons named in the application filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid finding of the trial court is not supported by any cogent reasoning to negate the assertions made by the petitioner.
14. It is a prominent canon of law that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the correctness, legality or finding of sentence/order alone can be taken into consideration.
(Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:14:54 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:19:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:35024] (7 of 7) [CRLR-2669/2019]
15. This Court holds that the trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and passed the impugned order ignoring the settled proposition of law and the statutory provisions as has been discussed.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and illegality.
17. Thus, the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 15/2019 (87/2019) with respect to Section 193 Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. The interim order dated 24.01.2020 stands vacated. The matter is remitted back to the trial court to pass order afresh in the light of the observations made in this order as well as settled proposition of law in judicial pronouncement as discussed hereinabove.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/44-45 (Uploaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:14:54 AM) (Downloaded on 16/09/2025 at 10:19:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)