SHAUKAT ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case was registered u/Sec. 420/468 IPC at P. S. Kotwali against Shaukat Ali. After investigation the police submitted a final report u/Sec. 169 CrPC on 31-3- 1974. This report was accepted by the magistrate on 24-4-1974. It was mentioned in this report that the parties had come to terms and that the complainant did not produce himself or any other witnesses. It appears that the complainant filed a protest application objecting to the final report submitted by the police. He challenged the statement in the final report that the parties had compounded their differences. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura after considering the facts of the case, as also the case diary has directed reinvestigation by the Police by his order dated 29-7-1974. Aggrieved thereby the instant revision has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. The applicant's counsel has challenged the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and to direct reinvestigation by the Police. Sec. 190 CrPC provides that the Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence- A. Upon receiving the complaint of facts which constitute such offence. B. Upon a police report of such facts. C. Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. In the instant case it is true that the final report had been submitted by the police but the objection of the complainant which in common parlance is treated as a "protest petition" challenging the correctness of the final report was filed by the complainant. In my opinion the Magistrate was quite justified, and had the power also to take cognizance of the offence u/Sec. 190 CrPC on the basis of the protest petition filed before him. I am fortified in the aforesaid view by a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in 1977 ACrR 61 Baker AH v. State of U. P. and also by an earlier decision of our Court reported in 1970 AWR 826 Ram Chand v. State of U. P.

(3.) FOR the reasons given above I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in passing the impugned order. This application in revision is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.