BABU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in the present revision application under Sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code is as to whether the Magistrate is duty bound to take cognizance of a case, the moment there is a protest petition by information.

(2.) The facts in the instant case lie in a very narrow compass. An F.I.R. was lodged by Dr. Tikaram Jaglan against I. Babu, Sb. Katara, 2. Onkar 3. Balu Sb. Raje, 4. Raj Kumar, 5. Kartar, 6. Nirankar, and 7. Shiv Raj, on 27-11-1984, regarding an alleged incident which was said to have happened in the night of 22-11-1984, through an application addressed to the Circle Officer after about 5 days of the incident. This report to the Circle Officer was ultimately sent to the police station concerned for the investigation. A final report followed. It appears that some objections were taken to the said final report. Another investigation was directed, this time by another Investigating Officer which also ended in a final report. Objections were repeated resulting in yet another investigation by yet another Investigating Officer. This time too a final report came. At this stage a protest petition was filed by Dr. Tikaram Jaglan. The Magistrate heard the informant and his counsel and by a detailed order dated 10-1-1986 rejected the protest petition and proceeded to accept the final report.

(3.) Though not strictly necessary, it may be desirable to mention here that the Magistrate Primarily relied upon the fact that on three occasions final report was forwarded and that the statements of two alleged eye witnesses namely. Prithivi pal and Mohan Das who were examined by the prosecution under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code during investigation,-did not name any accused what so ever. The belated report to the Circle officer and the absence of any F.I.R. at the police station either by the informant or by any witness, was also taken note of. The F.I.R. was registered under Sections 436/379/427/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Prompt F.I.R. would have revealed the truthfulness of otherwise of the Charges by prompt investigation. The view of the Magistrate further was that this opportunity also was permanently lost. Thus came the order of the Magistrate whereby he accepted the final report. N.P. 4. Dr. Tikaram Jaglan took the matter to the Sessions Court in revision, which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 91/1986 and has been ultimately allowed on 5-5-1988 by lie Second AddI. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad Four of the t named accused, Babu S/o Katara, Babu S/o Raje, Onkar and Raj Kumar have challenged the said order of the Sessions Judge, in lie present revision.