BHAGELU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu, J. Bhagelu, Jagarnath and Sri Harijan have preferred this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying that further proceedings in Misc. Case No. 35 of 1991 pending in the Court of A. C. J. M. I, Jaunpur should be quashed.

(2.) IT appears that Ram Pyare moved an application purporting to be under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. praying that an F. I. R. lodged at the respective police-station has not be registered. They forwarded it to the S. S. P. for getting investigated by the relevant police station. On this Magistrate had passed an order on 14-3-1991 and directed the police station Badlapur to register the case and investigate the matter. After investigation, the police submitted a Final report and forwarded the same to the Magistrate for consi deration, on this, the informant/opp. party Ram Pyarey moved the Magistrate through a protest petition saying that the final report be not accepted. In support thereof he has alleged that some persons on his side had received injuries and that the cross version in which his side was made accused is already pending through the charge-sheet. Considering the matter the Magistrate passed a detailed order on 29-5-1991 whereby he took cognizance of the matter and summoned the accused in the said application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. That is how 27 accused mentioned therein stand summoned under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 323, I. P. C. Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for the appli cants vehemently argued that the Magistrate is wrong in having taken cogni zance under Section 190 (l) (b) of the Cr. P. C. He was entitled at best to take cognizance only under Section 190 (1 ) (a) because there was a protest peti tion which should bi taken to be a complaint on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Sri N. D. Shukla learned counsel appearing for the infor mant has other things to say. IT was argued that once the cognizance has been taken rejecting the Final Report the case will be covered by the dictum of Supreme Court in H. S. Bells, 1980, SC p. 1883. Reliance has been placed by learned A. G. A. in support of the action of the Magistrate on the decision in Mis. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in 1989 SC p. 885.

(3.) THERE is yet another aspect to support the aforesaid view. It trans pires from the impugned order that the cross case has already been taken Cognizance of in which a charge-sheet has been filed by the police and is pending trial. Under the circumstances, cross version should be tried along-with the said case.