RAM DEWAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. After investigation in a case under Section 436 I. P. C. the investigating officer submitted final report on the ground that a false case was registered with the police on account of enmity. Complainant filed protest petition. After examining the case diary learned Magistrate found that there was sufficient material to summon the revisionist. Hence he passed the impugned order summoning the revisionist.

(2.) IT is obvious that there was no police report under Section 173 (2) before the Magistrate. When the Magistrate proceeded to summon the accused under Section 204 Cr. P. C. despite final report, the only inference possible is that the Magistrate rejected the final report and disagreed with the opinion of the investigating officer. Learned Magistrate could have taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (c) Cr. P. C. on the statement contained in the case diary. Learned Magistrate did not proceed with the protest petition as a complaint case. In the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, on procedure was prescribed for commitment of cases of which the Magistrate took cognizance on other information i. e. under Section 190 (1.) (c) Cr. P. C. Hence every protest petition was to be treated as complaint. In the criminal procedure Code of 1973 there are Sections 208. and 209 Cr. P. C. which prescribe procedure for commitment of all cases instituted on the basis other than police report. In view of these provisions it is not mandatory for the Magistrate to treat every protest petition as complaint.