GYAN SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN relation to an incident alleged to have occurred on 14th August, 2005, one Smt. Neena filed a First INformation Report on 15th August, 2005. IN the First INformation Report, it was stated that the applicant is a witness to the incident in question. On 16th August, 2005, respondent No. 2, who was accused in the First INformation Report lodged by Smt. Neena, approached the Magistrate and contended that an incident occurred on 13th August, 2005, in course whereof, the applicant committed cognizable offences punishable under the INdian Penal Code. He further contended before the Magistrate that in relation to the said incident, he went to the Police Station for lodgment of a First INformation Report, but the same was not accepted, whereupon, he went to the Superintendent of Police, but even then, the same was not accepted. Accepting such contention, Magistrate directed lodgment of the First INformation Report. INvestigation, pursuant to the First INformation Report of Smt. Neena, has resulted in submission of challan, whereas investigation into the First INformation Report lodged on the basis of the order of the Magistrate resulted in a police report in final form. Respondent No. 2 approached the Magistrate and contended that he should not accept the report in final form, inasmuch as, what he had stated before the INvestigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had not been appropriately recorded by the INvestigating Officer. He stated that the real incident was that what had been stated by him in his protest petition. The Magistrate called upon the private respondent to substantiate the allegation by tendering evidence. That having been done, the Magistrate, instead of accepting the police report in final form, took cognizance. That order of cognizance is under challenge in the instant case.

(2.) THE first ground is that the First Information Report, at the instance of respondent No. 2, was a counterblast to the First Information Report lodged by Smt. Neena. Since the incident complained of by Smt. Neena is of 14th August, 2005 and since the incident complained of by respondent No. 2 was of 13th August, 2005 and, in relation thereto, steps were taken on 14th August, 2005 as was accepted by the Magistrate when the application lodged before him under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 16th August, 2005 was allowed, it cannot be said that the said First Information Report is a counterblast as, admittedly, the First Information Report of Smt. Neena is of 15th August, 2005.

(3.) THE Application stands disposed of accordingly.