Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan

Jagdish vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 20, 1994
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/765691

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 431 of 1994
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 200, 202 and 482--Taking cognizance--Complaint discloses prima facie case against accused--Held, order taking cognizance does not amount to abuse of process of Court and does not warrant any interference.;A bare perusal of the criminal complaint discloses a prima facie case against...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdish

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1994(3)WLC550; 1994(2)WLN92

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - sections 200, 202 and 482--taking cognizance--complaint discloses prima facie case against accused--held, order taking cognizance does not amount to abuse of process of court and does not warrant any interference.;a bare perusal of the criminal complaint discloses a prima facie case against the accused. therefore, the impugned order does not amount to abuse of the process of the court and does not warrant any interference.;petition dismissed. - - is satisfied that prima facie case to proceed against the accused is made out then he is empowered to take cognizance. therefore, if the magistrate is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence disclosing certain offence against the accused then under section 190 cr......of the criminal complaint and the evidence recorded by him under sections 200 & 202 cr.p.c. is satisfied that prima facie case to proceed against the accused is made out then he is empowered to take cognizance. 'prima facie' means the evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of the truth of the facts unless rebutted or controverted. therefore, if the magistrate is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence disclosing certain offence against the accused then under section 190 cr.p.c. he can take cognizance and ensure his attendance by issuing summons, bailable or non-bailable warrant as the facts & circumstances of the case so warrant.4. if the accused, against whom the cognizance has been taken, has any substantial valid or legal defence available to him, then he should agitate his grievance and raise objections before the magistrate at the time of framing of charge and the learned magistrate is expected to consider all those objections. if after considering the objections raised by the accused the magistrate is of the opinion the no case is made out constituting any offence then at that stage, he can discharge the accused. this court has consistently held that the order passed by the magistrate taking cognizance of an offence should not be lightly interfered in a routine manner in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 cr.p.c. in the instant case a bare perusal of the criminal complaint discloses a prima facie case against the accused. therefore, the impugned order does not amount to abuse of the process of the court and does not warrant any interference.6. the up shot of the above discussion is that this petition is meritless and the same is here by dismissed. however, keeping in view the contents of the criminal complaint, the learned magistrate is directed to issue bailable warrant against the petitioner instead of issuing the non-bailable warrant to procure his presence in the court.

Full Judgment

Rajendra Saxena, J.

1. Mr. K.L. Thakur is directed to accept the notice of this Criminal Misc. Petition, which he has accepted and a copy of the memo of the petition has been supplied to him. On the joint request, this case is being finally disposed of.

2. It appears that on a criminal complaint filed by complainant Kishan Lal by caste Chamar against the petitioner for the offences Under Sections 327, 323, 341, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nimbahera after recording the evidence Under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. by his order dated 27.5.94 took cognizance against accused petitioner Jagdish for the offence Under Section 330 I.P.C. and Under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. Aggrieved petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the relevant record. If the Magistrate after perusing the contents of the criminal complaint and the evidence recorded by him Under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. is satisfied that prima facie case to proceed against the accused is made out then he is empowered to take cognizance. 'Prima Facie' means the evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of the truth of the facts unless rebutted or controverted. Therefore, if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence disclosing certain offence against the accused then Under Section 190 Cr.P.C. he can take cognizance and ensure his attendance by issuing summons, bailable or non-bailable warrant as the facts & circumstances of the case so warrant.

4. If the accused, against whom the cognizance has been taken, has any substantial valid or legal defence available to him, then he should agitate his grievance and raise objections before the Magistrate at the time of framing of charge and the learned Magistrate is expected to consider all those objections. If after considering the objections raised by the accused the Magistrate is of the opinion the no case is made out constituting any offence then at that stage, he can discharge the accused. This Court has consistently held that the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence should not be lightly interfered in a routine manner in exercise of its inherent powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the instant case a bare perusal of the criminal complaint discloses a prima facie case against the accused. Therefore, the impugned order does not amount to abuse of the process of the court and does not warrant any interference.

6. The up shot of the above discussion is that this petition is meritless and the same is here by dismissed. However, keeping in view the contents of the criminal complaint, the learned Magistrate is directed to issue bailable warrant against the petitioner instead of issuing the non-bailable warrant to procure his presence in the court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial