STATE Vs. DHOOLSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this reference are that on 16 -3 -1956 one Raghunathsingh filed a complaint in the Court of First Class Magistrate, Mahidpur against the two opponents Dhoolsingh and Bhuwansingh under Section 325 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process for securing attendance of the accused. On 26 -6 -1956 the Police also filed a Challan on the same facts against the same accused persons for offences under Sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the Police -report as he was of opinion that cognizance of the offence had already been taken and it was not open to him to take cognizance of the same offence again. By his order dated 24 -7 -1956 he ordered the Police -report to be kept with the complaint.

(2.) THE Police preferred a revision -application against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate, The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, who heard the revision -application has made a reference to this Court under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code with a recommendation that the said order of the learned Magistrate be quashed as being against the provisions of law.

(3.) THE matter is governed by the provisions of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Section empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence (a) on receiving the complaint of facts which constitute such offence: (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police officer; and (c) upon information received from any person other than a Police officer or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed. These three clauses of Section 190 under which cognizance can be taken of an offence by a Magistrate are alternative and not mutually exclusive. That being so when a Magistrate has a complaint and a police Challan about some offence on the same allegation of facts, he can take cognizance of both. (See State Vs. Pancham,, 1956 M.B.L.J. 1501). This is also the view taken by a full bench of the Patna High Court in Bharat Kishore Vs. Judhistar,, A.I.R. 1929 Pat 471 and by a division bench in Mukania Vs. Achalia : A.I.R. 1952 Raj 160.