KAMOD SINGH SHARMA Vs. BETAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. P. Mathur, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by Mr. M. L. Agarwal, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra on 23-7-1984 in Criminal Revision No. 420 of 1983. The learned Judge set aside the order dated 3-5-1983 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kharagarh at Agra in the case of State v. Betal Singh and others, through which he had summoned the accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 17 to stand their trial under Section 379 etc. of the I. P. C. in case Crime No. 15 of 1983.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 30-1-1983 by Kamod Singh Sharma against the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 17 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 427 and 147 of the I. P. C. The case was duly registered at police station. Iradat nagar on 8- 2-1983 as Crime Case No. 15 of 1983. Investigation was made and then the police submitted its report on lf-15-2-1983 through which it mentioned that after persual of the evidence, no case was made out. This final report went up before the learned Magistrate. Simultaneously, a protest petition dated 4-4- 1983 was also filed by the first informant, along with affidavits of four witnesses Suresh Chandra, Raghubir Singh, Pooran and Babu. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report and straightway summoned the opposite parties No. 1 to 17.

(3.) IN Abhinandan Jha's case, the following law was laid down : (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure does notuse the expressions 'charge-sheet' or 'final-report'. But it is understood in view of the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report filed by the police, under Section 170 of the Cr. P. C. is referred to as a 'charge-sheet'. But in respect of reports sent under Section 169 i. e. when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the same is termed variously in different states as either 'referred charge' or 'final report' or 'summary'. (2) The use of the words, "may take cognizance of any offence" in sub-section (1) of Section 190 imports the exercise of a 'judicial discretion' and the Magistrate who receives the report under Sec tion 173, will have to consider the said report and judicially takes a decision, whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. (3) There may however be instances when the Magistrate may take the view on a consideration of the Final Report, that the opinion formed by the police is not based on a full and complete investi gation, in which case, he will have ample jurisdiction to give direction to the police under Section 156 (3) to make a further investigation. If ultimately the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence under Section 90 (i) (b) of the Cr. P. C. notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expres sed in the final report