Revision Court Cannot Direct Trial Court To Take Cognizance Against Accused: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot direct the Trial Court to take cognizance under Section 398 CrPC, as it merely empowers courts to order further inquiry.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the order directing the Trial Court to take cognizance for cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. The bench empahsized;"Revisional...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot direct the Trial Court to take cognizance under Section 398 CrPC, as it merely empowers courts to order further inquiry.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the order directing the Trial Court to take cognizance for cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. The bench empahsized;
"Revisional Court/Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge cannot issue a direction to the Trial Court to take cognizance against the accused. If the Revisional Court was of the view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court was perverse, the matter could have been remitted to the Trial Court for passing fresh order on the basis of the evidence available on the record".
A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed challenging the order of the Revision Court wherein the petition of respondent no 2 was allowed, and a direction was issued to the Court below to take cognizance against the petitioners for cruelty.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent had filed a complaint against them before the Concerned court, which forwarded the matter for investigation under section 156 CrPC. The counsel contended that an FIR was filed, but the investigating officer filed a Negative Closure Report. The respondent's protest petition was rejected by the competent court.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision before the Additional Session Judge (revisional court), which was allowed through an order of September 24, 2015. The revisional court set aside the impugned order and directed the court below to take cognizance against the petitioners for cruelty (Section 498A of IPC).
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the revisional court has no jurisdiction to direct the Trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioners and therefore the said order is legally not sustainable.
Considering the scope of Section 398 of the CrPC, the court held that the impugned order was not legally sustainable and therefore liable to be set aside. The court further remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to conduct further inquiry.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan [SB Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5716/2015]
For Petitioner: Advocate Tarun Jain
For State: Public Prosecutor Manvendra Singh Shekhawat