SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 20 March, 2018

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 324 / 2018

1. Pawan Kumar S/o Somnath, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste
Oad, R/o Village Rattewala Tehsil Padampur, District

2. Laxman S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Oad

3. Phulobai W/o Laxman, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Oad,
Responden No.2 3 Resident of 3 J.J. Tehsil Padampur District


1. State of Rajasthan

2. Pawan Kumar S/o Ram Swaroop, Aged About 26 Years, By
Caste Oad, Resident of Chack 4 E.E. Tehsil Padampur, District

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.

Petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section

397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge order dated 7 th of March, 2018,

passed by Special Judge, Woman Atrocities Cases, Sri Ganganagar

in Sessions Case No.38/2016, whereby learned Court below has

taken cognizance against them for offence under Sections 498A

304B IPC. After taking cognizance, learned Court below has

summoned the petitioners by issuing arrest warrants.

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, at the outset, has

abandoned his challenge to the order of cognizance but has simply

craved that arrest warrants be converted into bailable warrants in

view of the fact that cognizance in the matter is taken against

them by resorting to Section 193 Cr.P.C. It is also argued by

learned counsel that in such matters, normally, at the first

instance, accused is required to be issued summons or bailable

warrants but issuing arrest warrants at the first instance is not

desirable. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has

placed reliance on a judgment dated 26 th of February, 2016,

passed by this Court in Hanuman Ram Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan Anr.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has formally opposed

the revision petition.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments

advanced at the Bar.

Upon examining the impugned order, I record my satisfaction

that learned Court below has rightly exercised its discretion in

taking cognizance against the petitioners by resorting to Section

193 Cr.P.C. However, for ensuring presence of both the petitioners

to face trial, the learned Court below has seriously erred in issuing

arrest warrants at the first instance.

(3 of 3)

Accordingly, the impugned order, to the extent of issuing

arrest warrants against the petitioners, is quashed. The learned

Court below may now issue bailable warrants against the

petitioners in a sum of Rs.50,000 for ensuring their presence

before Court below on or before 26th of April, 2018.

In view thereof, the instant revision petition is, accordingly,

disposed of subject to the observations made supra.


Twinkle Singh/195

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation