PANCHAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It would appear that Mangal Singh, opposite party No. 2, lodged a report against 28 persons including the applicant for offences under Sections 14/, 148, 307 and 452 I. P. C. at police station, Barnahal, Distict Mainpuri registered a Crime Case No. 118-A of 1980. A final report was submitted by the police under Section 169 Cr. P. C. which was accepted on February 10, 1981. On February 18, 1931 Mangal Singh made a prayer to the court that it may not accept the final report and direct further investigation. The then Munsif-Magistrate, Mainpuri, on such application directed a further investigation in the case, also asking for complete prayers including 'x' ray report. Aggrieved by such orders the applicant preferred an objection but it was over-ruled by the order dated April 13, 1981 of the Munsif-Magistrate. A criminal revision No. 61 of 1981 was then preferred but it was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri by his order dated August 29, 1981. The applicant feeling aggrieved from such orders has preferred this application under Section 482 with a prayer that the aforesaid orders may be set aside. It is urged that once a final report under Section 169, Cr. P. C. has been accepted, the order will amount to a discharge and no further proceedings can be taken. Reliance in support of such argument has been placed upon the case of Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1980 S. C. Cases 347. ). In that case the Magistrate concerned at first bailed out the accused and ultimately on the basis of a final report submitted by the police discharged the accused. The police in the final report had stated the complaints to be false. Proceeding was later initiated against the complainant in the case under Section 211, I. P C on the ground that the complainant concerned had initiated a false case against the accused persons. On these facts it was held that the order of the Magistrate was a judicial order and that being so, the bar of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. was attracted as the order of the Magistrate accepting final report and making the discharge was a judicial order. The case is simply an authority for the proposition that such order is a judicial order. Neither the matter arose for consideration whether the Magistrate can direct any further investigation and can even take cognizance under Section 190 of the Cr. P. C. inspite of his earlier acceptance of the final report nor any decision on that point has been recorded in the case of Kamlapati (supra ). The matter directly arose for consideration in the case of Pradum Narain Pandey v. State and Another (1958 A. C. C. 223.) which is a Division Bench pronouncement of this court and it was held that it is open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence even after having accepted a final report by the police under Section 169, Cr. P. C. earlier. This case is a direct authority on the point. Section 190 (1) having the sub-clauses (a) (b) (c) provides for taking of the cognizance. The matter was fully considered in the case of Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Misra (A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 117.) it was held that while the Magistrate cannot direct the police to submit any charge-sheet, his powers to take cognizance notwithstanding any final report by the police are unfettered. Cognizance can be taken upon receiving a complaint as well as upon any other information as provided under various sub-clauses. In the present case there was a protest petition. In the background of such protest petition subsequent to the acceptence of report direction for further investigation and for production of complete papers including X-Ray report has been given which is fully within the competence and jurisdiction of the Magistrate. After such further information is received it is open to the Magistrate to take cognizance but obviously if it is not a police chalani case a resort to the procedure for complaint case will be made as has also been laid down in the case of Pradum Narain Pandey v. State of U. P. (supra ). Similar view has also been taken in another case reported in Narayan Ram Chandra Karambelkar v. The State (1972 Cr. L. J. 1446 (F. B ). In the result this petition is dismissed. .