SHAFIQ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri U. K. Misra, Advocate for the appli cants, has been heard at length and the paper annexed to the petition have been carefully perused. Facts relevant for the disposal of this application are these; A F. I R. under Sections 143, 435 and 436 I. P. C. was lodged against the ap plicants. The police investigated into the allegations of the report and submit ted final report. The final report was submitted to the magistrate for accep tance. The person, who lodged the F. I. R. filed an objection. Some affida vits were also filed. In these papers it was asserted that the police had not properly investigated into the case. By order dated 7. 10. 1980 the magistrate rejected the final report and immediately passed a cryptic order saying 'regis ter case against the accused and summon them'. The Magistrate did not record reasons as to why he did not accept the final report submitted by the police and as to why he was inclined to suo moto take cognizance of the case. Shafiq Ahmad filed two revisions before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge allowed the revisions and quashed the order of the magistrate only on one ground, namely, the magistrate had not recorded reasons for rejecting the final report of the police and for taking cognizance of the case under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P C. Thereafter the magistrate recorded speaking order on 2. 4. 1981. He gave reasons for not accepting the final report and for taking the cognizance of the case. He summoned the accused persons. Against this order the applicants went up in revision unsuccessfully before the Session Judge. The grievance of the applicants can be gathered from para 8 and 9 of the accompanying affidavit of Shafiq Ahmad. In para 8 it has been stated that the magistrate, order dated 2. 4. 1981 amounted to sitting in judgment over that of the decision of the Sessions Judge and that it was clearly without jurisdiction and amount to the abuse of the process of the Court. In para 9 it was stated that the higher Court alone could reverse the order of Sessions Judge dated 11. 2. 1981. In this connection Sri U. K. Misra urged that in his order dated 11. 2. 1981 the Sessions Judge did not give direction to the effect that the magistrate could take cognizance of the case if the recorded reasons for not accepting the final report and for taking cognizance of the case. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the Sessions Judge rightly quashed the order dated 7. 10. 80 because the magistrate did not record reasons for rejecting the final report and for taking the cognizance of the case. It means that the magistrate jassed a bald cryptic order. Obviously such an order could not be allowed to stand. Therefore, the order dated 7. 10. 80 had to be set aside, But this does not mean the magistrate could not pass any other order on the final report submitted by the police. As soon as the order dated 7,10. 1980 stood quashed the final report of the police stood. Therefore, it was necessary for the magistrate to pass an order either accepting it or rejecting it. While doing so the magistrate could record reasons for rejec ting the final report and in doing so he could also pass an order of taking cognizance of the case. In these circumstances it is not correct to say that the magistrate was sitting in judgment over that of the Sessions Judge. Correctly speaking the magistrate was performing his duty. After the Sessions Judge had set aside the order dated 7. 10 1980 it was the duty of the magistrate to accept the final report or to reject it. In this view of the matter there is no merit in the contentions raised in paras 8 and 9 of the affidavit. I do not agree with Sri U. K. Misra that while disposing of the revision on 11. 2 1981 the Sessions Judge should have given a specific direction to the magistrate to pass an appropriate order on the final report. As soon as the Sessions Judge quashed the order dated 7. 10. 1980, It became the duty of the magistrate to pass an order on the final report, The magistrate was bound to do so even if the Sessions Judge did not give any direction in his order dated 11. 2. 1981. The Sessions Judge did not direct the Magistrate to accept the final report. No other point was raised in the case. For what has been discussed above, this application is without merits. .