Kheewa Ram Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - sections 406, 420 and 467 and criminal procedure code--taking cognizance of--court to examine evidence to find out whether primafacie case is made out--evidence not to be examine meticulously--held, court can take cognizance of offence if prima facie case is made out.;at the time of taking the cognizance, the court has to apply its mind on the evidence of the witnesses and the suspected conditions of the offence to satisfy itself that a prima facie case is made-out to proceed-with against the present accused. at this stage, the evidence is not to be meticulously examined, as required to be examined at the final stage. if there is prima facie evidence to proceed-with then the court can take cognizance and proceed-with the matter.;petition dismissed. - 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. b.r. arora, j.1. this miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated november 7, 1987, passed by the additional chief judicial magistrate, sojat, by which the learned magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under sections 467 and 420 i.p.c.2. nand kishore, branch magager of the marwar gramin bank, jadan, lodged a first information report with the station house officer, police station, shivpura, under sections 406 and 420 i.p.c. the police, after necessary investigation, submitted the report, mentioning therein that no case against the accused, under sections 406 and 420 i.p.c, is made-out, but according to the police, the case under section 467 i.p.c is prima facie made-out against the accused. the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, sojat, by his order dated november 7, 1987, after taking into consideration the papers on record, took cognizance against the petitioner under sections 467 and 420 i.p.c. it is against this order that the present petition under section 482 cr.p.c. has been filed.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor and perused the order passed by the learned magistrate. i have, also, perused the record of the case.4. at the time of taking the cognizance, the court has to apply its mind on the evidence of the witnesses and the suspected conditions of the offence to satisfy itself that a prima facie case, is made-out to proceed-with against the present accused. at this stage, the evidence is not to be meticulously examined, as required to be examined at the final stage. if there is prima facie evidence to proceed-with then the court can take cognizance and proceed-with the matter. if the accused, against whom the cognizance has been taken, has any valid defence available to him, then he can agitate that point before the trial court and the trial court will decide his objections, if so raised at the appropriate stage. but the power under section 482 cr.p.c. cannot be lightly used in quashing the proceeding when a prima facie case has been made-out against the accused-petitioner. it has been held by the supreme court in the case of the state of haryana v. choudhary bhajan lal (judgments today-1990 (4)650):we also give a notice of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the f.i.r. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or capriee.5. in this view of the matter, i am of the opinion that if the petitioner has any valid defence available to him, including the point mentioned above, the petitioner can raise all these objections before the learned trial court and the learned trial court will decide all these objection at the appropriate time, if so raised.6. in this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, sojat, taking cognizance against the petitioner, does not suffer from any infirmity and no interferance is required to be made under the inherent powers of this court.7. in the result, i do not find any force in this miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner and it is, therefore, dismissed.