MOHAN CHANDRA BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision, revisionist is assailing order dated 14.03.2005, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No. 30 of 2005, whereby learned Magistrate has refused to discharge the accused and proceeded to frame charges against accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 506, 354 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that on 11.04.2004, revisionist no.1 lodged an FIR with Police Station, Kotwali (Sadar), Pithoragarh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 489 of 2004 for an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC against Bhure Mia and others. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.'1' to the revision. Thereafter, on the same day Bhure Mia also submitted a report to the Police Station, Kotwali, Pithoragarh, Annexure No. '2' to the revision stating that when he and Shakeel objected the revisionist not to flow water towards them, then revisionist started beating them and extended threat, whereupon, police registered the case as NCR No. 39 of 2004 for an offence punishable under Section 506, 323, 504 IPC. Three days thereafter i.e. on 13.04.2004, Tabassum and Mohd. Salim submitted an application before Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh along with an affidavit stating therein that they had been miserably beaten and they had suffered injuries at the hands of revisionist. Having received the affidavits and medical report police started investigation on NCR No. 39 of 2004 and thereafter submitted a charge sheet against revisionist for an offence punishable under Section 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC. From the side of revisionist, objection was raised to the effect that once NCR was registered, police has absolutely no jurisdiction to commence the investigation without taking prior approval or direction from the Magistrate, in view of Section 155 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Howver, learned Magistrate has opined that since police had investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the revisionist for the offences, which were cognizable in nature, therefore objection raised by the revisionist were not tenable. Feeling aggrieved revisionist has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, while placing reliance of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Mamchand and others vs. State, 1999 CrLJ 1512 has argued in the present matter initiation of the investigation itself was without jurisdiction, therefore, taking subsequent affidavit filed by alleged injured and filing of charge sheet for cognizable offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is not permissible, therefore Magistrate ought to have accepted the objections raised by the revisionist. He further argued that Medico Legal Report of Tabassum and Mohd. Salim would also suggest that none of them received any grievous injury justifying inclusion of Section 324 IPC. He has further argued that medical report would suggest that both of them sustained only simple injuries.