HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 82 / 2017
State of Rajasthan

—-Petitioner
Versus
Heera Lal S/o Achuram Nai, R/o Jindrasr, Tehsil Sujjangarh.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, P.P. for the State.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
25/04/2017

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)
[CRLR-82/2017]

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

dismissed.

(P.K. LOHRA)J.

Twinkle/26