AMAR PARMANAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Magistrate First Class, Pachhar, requiring the Police to put up a charge -sheet against the petitioner and also to arrest him.

(2.) THE material facts are that a report was made by one Musammat Tudia in the Police Station, Ashoknagar alleging that the petitioner Naraindas alias Premanand committed rape on her. After investigation the Police made a final report to the Magistrate First Class, Pachhar for cancellation of the case because it found no substance in the report lodged by her. However, the complainant filed a protest petition alleging that the police was taking sides with the accused. Her application dated June 11, 1958 is in detail. It was on this that the Magistrate passed the impugned order.

(3.) THE contention of Shri Anand before me is that although the Magistrate was empowered to take congnizance of the case, and he also had jurisdiction to direct the arest of the petitioner, he had no jurisdiction under the law to order the Police to Challan the accused. After hearing the learned Government Advocate I am of the opinion that this contention must be accepted. Under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is certainly open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of a case even where the Police is of opinion that there is no case against the accused. But I do not find anywhere in this section the power being vested in a Magistrate to order the Police to submit a charge -sheet against the accused even though it may be contrary to the conclusion reached by it. There is no doubt that in a suspected case a Magistrate may direct the Police to investigate and arrive at a conclusion one way or the other. That is not the case here. The Police having already investigated into the alleged crime came to a definite conclusion.