LexVIKAS versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 208
VIKAS
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2013)
AUGUST 16, 2013
[H.L. DATTU AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.319 - Abduction
of girl - Three accused - PW4 filed application uls.319 CrPC
C for trial of appellant alongwith other accused persons - Trial
Court took cognizance and summoned appellant through
issuance of non-bailable warrant - Appellant filed application
for converting the non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant -
Trial Court rejected the application - Order confirmed by High
D Court - Whether the attendance of appellant could have been
best secured by issuing a summon simplicitor or a bailable
warrant instead of a non-bailable warrant in an app/icatfon u/
s.319 CrPC -
Held: s.319 CrPC demands more
circumspection by the Trial Court while exercising its powers
E since it confers an extraordinary power and should be used
by the court very sparingly thereby ensuring that principles
of rule of law and basic tenets of criminal law jurisprudence
are not vitiated - Issuance of non-bailable warrant in the first
instance without using the other tools of summons and
F bailable warrant to secure attendance of appellant impaired
his personal liberty - Non-bailable warrant should be issued
to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants
would be unlikely to have the desired result - The court in all
circumstances in complaint cases at the first instance should
G first prefer issuing summons or bailable warrant failing which
a non-bailable warrant should be issued - Direction given that
summons be issued against the appellant for his appearance
instead of non-bailable warrant - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 363,
366 and 376.
H
208
VIKAS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
209
lnder Mohan Goswami; 2007 12 SCC 1: 2007 (10) SCR
A
847; Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 791: 2007 (10) SCR 847
Sf?te of U. P. vs. Poosu and Anr; 1976 3 SCC 1: 1976 (3)
~CR 1005 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2007 (10) SCR 847
-2007 (10) SCR 847
.1976 (3) SCR 1005
referred to
referred to
referred to
Para 14
Para 14
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1190 of 2013.
B
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2013 of the
High-Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B.
D
Cni™rial Misc. Petition No. 1080 of 2013.
Sushil K. Jain, Puneet Jain, Anas M. Riyaz, Pratibha Jain
for the Appellant.
E
Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, lrshad Ahmad for the
Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
F
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1080 of 2013 dated 4th
G
April, 2013, whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition
filed by the appellant under section 482 of Criminal Procedure
~de, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.").
3. The Facts in brief are: - The incident occurred on
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 8 S.C.R.
A 01.12.2011 at about 4.00 a.m. PW-4, the complainant had
lodged an FIR before the Police Station at Singhana, District
Jhunjhunu to the effect that PW5, the daughter of the
Complainant, Sonu was abducted by the accused persons
namely Deshram, Vikash, Ravi Kumar and Amit Kumar. On the
8 fateful day, PW-5, had gone out of her house, when the
appellant along with the other accused persons hatched a
conspiracy to forcibly abduct her and in pursuance of the same
abducted PW-5.
4. The FIR was registered and after completion of the
C investigation, the investigating agency had filed a charge-sheet
against the accused, Amit Kumar (A1) for the offences under
Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code ("the IPC"
for short) and Ravi Kumar (A2) and Ajit (A3) for the offences
under Sections 363, 366(A) and 1208 of the IPC. The Trial
D Court, thereafter, commenced with the trial against A 1, A2 and
A3 respectively.
·
5. During the course of trial, the Trial Court appreciated
the evidence available on record and framed charges against
E A 1 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 and under Sections 363,
366(A) and 1208 of the IPC against A2. Thereafter, PW4, filed
an application before: the Trial Court under Section 319 of the
Cr.P.C. for the trial of the appellant along with the other accused
persons for having been involved in the commission of the
F offence.
6. TExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.