JABARUDDEEN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No. 1182 of 1998 whereby he took cognizance against them under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/149, I.P.C. and directed for issuance of non-bailable warrants against them. Two persons, namely, Rojudin and Nooruddin lost their lives in the incident. As the report of opposite party No. 2 was not taken down by the police, he moved an application to D.I.G., Meerut and then the F.I.R. against the applicants came to the lodged. A Crime No. 245A of 1997 was registered. The applicants' side had also made an F.I.R. which was registered as Crime No. 245 of 1997. The police submitted chargesheet in Crime No. 245 of 1997 registered at the instance of the present applicants but submitted final report against the applicants in Crime No. 245A of 1997. Opposite Party No. 2 Umadin filed a protest petition against the final report along with certain affidavits. By the impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected final report submitted by the police and took cognizance against the applicants for the offences made mention of above.

(2.) The grievance of the applicants is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not take into consideration the police report and protest petition with affidavits simultaneously. He could either take into consideration the protest petition and affidavits, treating the same as complaint and adopting the procedure prescribed for a complaint case or could take cognizance on the basis of police report. But the police report and the protest petition could not be jumbled up by him to take cognizance against the applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants has urged that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is perfectly illegal that he summoned the applicants on simultaneous consideration of the police report and the protest petition. He has tried to support his argument by making reference to certain rulings.

(3.) On the other hand, the argument from the side of opposite party No. 1, State and opposite party No. 2 is that by filing the protest petition opposite party No. 2 only invited the attention of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the final report submitted by the police was not capable of being accepted and there was enough evidence collected during investigation for the taking of congnizance against the applicants. The opposite parties are supporting the impugned order as being perfectly justified and in accordance with law, relying on certain rulings.