RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A report under Sections 147 and 323, I. P. C. was lodged at P. S. Sahatwar against the five applicants in this revision. After investigation, the S. O. on August 27, 1967, wrote out a final report to the effect that no case was made out. Before this final report was received by the Magistrate, Tarkeshwar Pathak O. P. No. 2 made an application on September 13, 1967, before the Magistrate concerned, praying that the final report be rejected and the accused be summoned. The Magistrate ordered this application to be put up with the final report when received. On September 19, 1967, the applicant made an application to the Magistrate to reject the application dated September 13, 1967. On this application also, the Magistrate passed an order directing it to be put up when the final report was received. After the final report was received, the two applications together with the final report were put up before the Magistrate. On September 26, 1967, he passed the following order:-

(2.) SRI R. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, has not disputed before us that the Magistrate could take cognizance of the case even though a final report had been submitted by the police. His contention is that the Magistrate could take cognizance either under Section 190 (1) (a) on the basis of the application of Tarkeshwar Pathak dated September 13, 1967, which amounted to a complaint, or he could take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (c), Criminal P. C. His contention is that, in no case, could the Magistrate take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b ). From the tenor of the order of the Magistrate dated September 26, 1967, it appears that he had taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b), Criminal P. C.

(3.) SINCE the question raised in this case relates to the applicability of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 190, it is desirable to quote Section 190 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure :