JAGANNATH DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of cognizance dated 8-3-1989 by which order the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences u/Ss. 436/149 and 147, I.P.C.

(2.) The petitioners' case in brief is that an arson took place in the Harijan Busti on 8-4-1988 and on the basis of an information to that effect, the police registered a case and started investigation. While the police was proceding with the investigation, a complaint was filed by opposite party No. 2 on 19-4-1988. The Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the complainant on 20-4-1988 and instead of issuing process directed an enquiry u/S. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the enquiry the complainant produced his witnesses. Finally on the basis of the available materials the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences by the impugned order dated 8-3-1989. The G.R. case which had been registered and was being investigated into by the police ended in submission of a final form by the police on 19-8-1988. After the cognizance was taken in the complaint case, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the cognizance.

(3.) Mr. Rao appearing for the petitioners contends that on the date on which the complaint case was instituted, in respect of the self-same incident investigation by the police was in progress and, therefore, the magistrate in the complaint case should have stayed his hand under sub-sec. (1) of S. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same not having been done and instead an enquiry u/S. 202 having been directed in the complaint case, the said enquiry is vitiated and consequently, the order of the magistrate taking cognizance on the basis of the materials produced during the enquiry is also non est. Mr. Rao also contends that the magistrate while taking cognizance in the complaint case failed to exercise his jurisdiction in not considering the materials which were available on record during the investigation in the G.R. case and such non-consideration has vitiated the impugned order of taking cognizance. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the enquiry made u/S. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to be without jurisdiction merely because on the date of the enquiry an investigation by the police was in progress in relation to the offence in question and, at any rate, the police having submitted the final form, the order of the magistrate in the complaint case taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of materials produced before him cannot be said to be in any way illegal. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that a complaint case is initiated u/S. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on examining the complainant on oath and in the said case the magistrate is called upon to consider the statements of the complainant on oath and of the witnesses and the result of the enquiry or investigation, if any, u/S. 202 and thereafter to either dismiss the complaint or issue process, as provided u/S. 203 of the Code. Consequently, it is not the requirement of law for a magistrate to take into consideration the materials brought on record in course of investigation by the police into the self- same offence on the basis of institution of a G.R. case and, therefore, the magistrate did not commit any error in not considering those materials. The rival submissions require a careful examination of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.