HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
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
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.