HARBAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 482, CrPC filed by Harbir Singh, Katar Singh and Mahabir Singh (hereinafter called the petitioners) praying that the order dated 31st October, 1980 passed by the Magistrate directing reinvestigation and the order dated 13th August, 1981 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, be quashed. A relief was also asked for in the petition for staying the execution of the warrant of attachment and arrest passed by the Magistrate.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition briefly be stated as follows : Harbir Singh petitioner is son-in-law of Chatar Singh, opposite party no. 1. On 12th of February 1980, Chatar Singh lodged a report under section 406, IPC at P. S. Chaprauli, district Meerut, against the petitioners. It is alleged in the report that tractor no. 2615067 had been purchased by him, but it was in the custody of his son Rajendra Singh for purposes of cultivation : that Rajendra Singh died after a protracted illness and the tractor remained with Harbir Singh, petitioner no. 1, that after the death of his daughter, who was married to Harbir Singh, he went to the village of Harbir Singh to ask for the tractor, but the petitioners refused to return the same and thereby misappropriated it. THE police of P. S. Chaprauli made investigation into the report lodged by Chatar Singh, opposite party no. 1 ;and submitted a final report on 4-8-1980. By his order dated 16th of September, 1980, the Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, accepted this final report. THEreafter on 16th of October, 1980, opposite party no. 1 filed an application praying that the order passed by the Judicial . Magistrate Meerut, on 16th of September, 1980 accepting the final report be recalled and the case may be got reinvestigated. On 31st October, 1980 the Magistrate passed an order on that application directing reinvestigation. Aggrieved against the order, the petitioners filed a revision in the court; of sessions. THE learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, who heard the revision, dismissed it as deviod of substance. Aggrieved against that order the petitioners have filed the present application under section 482, CrPC.

(3.) A copy of the application dated 16-10-1980 is Annexure 'III' to the petition and a perusal thereof shows that it is nothing but a protest petition. It is well settled that a protest petition can be treated as a complaint by the Magistrate and he can act on it even after accepting the final report. It is also well settled that when a complaint is filed before a Magistrate empowered to take coganizance under Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has the following courses open to him : (i) He may direct investigation by the police under sub-section (3) of Sec. 156, CrPC without taking cognizance of the complaint. (ii) He may take cognizance of the case, record the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, and may then either issue process against the accused or may postpone the issue of process and direct investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person as he may think fit, before deciding whether or not there was sufficient ground to proceed on the complaint.