Dhan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Dhan Singh vs The State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 02, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760499

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760499
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Milap Chandra, J.
Decided On: Jan 02, 1993
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Mies. Petition No. 19 of 1993
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 147, 148, 307, 447and 323 and Criminal Procedure Code--Sections 319 & 320--Compounding of offence--D received 4 simple injuries--No injury from fire arm--Other co accused discharged--Held, Magistrate was not justified to take cognizance against accused.;The injured Devilal received only four...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dhan Singh

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1993WLN(UC)52

Excerpt

.....injured devilal received only four simple injuries, none of them was of a fire-arm and as such the learned magistrate was not justified to observe that the injury received by him could be fatal. it is also not in dispute that cognizance has not been taken by him against the co-accused chand singh, pankaj, kayyum qureshi and paras ram and all have been discharged. under these facts and circumstances of the case, the learned magistrate was not justified under section 319, cr.p.c. to take cognizance of offence punishable under sections 147, 148 & 307 i.p.c.;accordingly, the parties are permitted to compound the offence punishable under sections 447 and 323, i.p.c.;petition allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....: 1982 crilj1972 in support of his contention. he lastly submits that the parties have compromised all their disputes, compromise has also been filed in this court on 11.01.93 and this court can grant permission under section 320(6) cr.p.c. for compounding the offence punishable under sections 323 & 447, i.p.c.2. learned counsel for the complainant devi lal and the learned public prosecutor admits that compromise has been arrived at in between the parties, it has also been filed in this court by them on 11.01.93 and they have nothing more to submit.3. under the facts and circumstances of the case, the application moved under section 320(6), cr.p.c. deserves to be allowed.4. it is clear from the injury report that the injured devilal received only four simple injuries, none of them was of a fire-arm and as such the learned magistrate was not justified to observe that the injury received by him could be fatal it is also not in dispute that cognizance has not been taken by him against the co-accused chand singh, pankaj, kayyum qureshi and paras ram and all have been discharged. under these facts and circumstances of the case, the learned magistrate was not justified under section 319, cr.p.c. to lake cognizance of offence punishable under sections 147, 148 & 307 i.p.c.5. accordingly, the parties are permitted to compond the offence punishable under sections 447 and 323, i.p.c. no offence punishable under sections 147, 148 and 307, i.p.c. is made out. the order of the learned magistrate dated 14.10.1992 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner dhan singh for the offences punishable under sections 307, 147, 149, 323 and 449, i.p.c. is quashed.

Full Judgment

Milap Chandra, J.

1. It is contended by learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that in the FIR, it is not categorically mentioned that a fire-arm was used, the injury-report of the injured does not show any injury of a fire-arm and as such no offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 307, I.P.C. under the impression that a fire-arm was used by the accused persons. He also submits that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance against the accused Chandra Singh, Pankaj, Quayum Qureshi and Paras Ram for any offence, there remains three accused-persons only, as such there arises no question of the commission of offences under Sections 147 & 148 I.P.C. after thorough investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 323, I.P.C. only and in rare case only a Court can take cognizance against other persons under Section 319, Cr.P.C. He placed reliance upon : 1982 CriLJ1972 in support of his contention. He lastly submits that the parties have compromised all their disputes, compromise has also been filed in this Court on 11.01.93 and this court can grant permission under Section 320(6) Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 447, I.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the complainant Devi Lal and the learned Public Prosecutor admits that compromise has been arrived at in between the parties, it has also been filed in this Court by them on 11.01.93 and they have nothing more to submit.

3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the application moved under Section 320(6), Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

4. It is clear from the injury report that the injured Devilal received only four simple injuries, none of them was of a fire-arm and as such the learned Magistrate was not justified to observe that the injury received by him could be fatal It is also not in dispute that cognizance has not been taken by him against the co-accused Chand Singh, Pankaj, Kayyum Qureshi and Paras Ram and all have been discharged. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate was not justified under Section 319, Cr.P.C. to lake cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 & 307 I.P.C.

5. Accordingly, the parties are permitted to compond the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 323, I.P.C. No offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307, I.P.C. is made out. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 14.10.1992 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner Dhan Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 149, 323 and 449, I.P.C. is quashed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1993 Same Parties Dhan Singh vs The State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Milap Chandra, J.

Criminal