HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 82 / 2017
State of Rajasthan
Heera Lal S/o Achuram Nai, R/o Jindrasr, Tehsil Sujjangarh.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, P.P. for the State.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused impugned order
dated 18th of July, 2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Sujangarh, District Churu (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). By the
order impugned, learned trial Court has dismissed the application
filed by learned Public Prosecutor under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for
taking cognizance against complainant PW1-Heera Lal.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that
complainant lodged an FIR against accused-persons alleging
offence under Section 498A 306 IPC. Police, after investigation,
submitted charge-sheet in the matter and in due course of time
the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. During trial,
the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses retracted
from their earlier versions and turned hostile. It is in that
background, the learned trial Court thought it proper not to
summon other witnesses and recorded statements of accused-
persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Subsequent to that, final
(2 of 2)
arguments were heard and the accused-persons were acquitted
for the aforesaid offences.
Taking note of the fact that complainant PW1-Heera Lal has
retracted from his earlier version and turned hostile, learned
Public Prosecutor made endeavour before learned trial Court for
taking cognizance against him and for that purpose application
under Section 193 Cr.P.C. is filed. The learned trial Court upon
examining the entire evidence available in record and considering
the factum of compromise, which is arrived at between
complainant and the accused, declined to exercise its discretion
under Section 193 Cr.P.C.
There remains no quarrel that genesis of offence under
Sections 498A 306 IPC is matrimonial dispute and at times a
trivial incident is blown out of proportion by the complainant. It
appears that after lodging FIR, the complainant has realized that
in fact the accused persons are not responsible for commission of
offences and consequently the complainant and other witnesses
have retracted from their earlier versions. Therefore, in the
backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case,
in my opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any manifest
error in rejecting the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. While,
recording my satisfaction about correctness, legality and propriety
of the impugned order, I feel dissuaded to interfere in the matter.
Consequently, petition fails and the same is hereby