SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sughendra Chander filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, for taking action against Mohan Lal and others for offences under Sections 166, 218, 419, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. alleging that land measuring 12 Kanals 1 Marla was owned by Mahavir Parshad. Mahavir Parshad and Madan Lal were also in cultivating possession of some other area as non-occupancy tenants. Sohan Lal who was posted as a Patwari in Ellenabad, Had Bast No. 118, District Sirsa, in connivance with Mohan Lal and Sukh Ram changed the entries in the girdawari wrongfully. On receipt of the complaint, it was registered by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and was posted for consideration on 15.5.1993. On the adjourned date arguments were heard and the case was fixed for orders on 24.5.1993. On 24.5.1993 the case was sent to S.H.O. Police Station, Ellenabad as provided under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration and investigation and thereafter F.I.R. Annexure P/1 was recorded at Police Station, Ellenabad. Sohan Lal has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the first information report. It was pleaded that once the trial Court had taken cognizance and heard arguments no order could be passed for registration of case and investigation by the police and an illegality had been committed by additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by getting the case registered. The first information report was liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the complainant effected compromise with the petitioner and filed an affidavit alleging that after investigating the spot the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ellenabad ordered the change of entries in the khasra girdawari which had been corrected and he had obtained possession of the land in dispute vide report in the Rojnamcha entered at serial No. 510 dated 6.10.1993. He was no longer interested in pursuing the litigation against the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence investigation by the police could not be ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and he placed reliance on T.K. Kodandaram Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and others. 1993 Criminal Law Journal 1926 in support of his contention wherein it was held that investigation by the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. could be ordered only before taking cognizance. Once cognizance is taken resort can be had only for post-cognizance investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel is valid. In this case the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence and after hearing arguments had posted the case for orders when it was sent to the police for registration and investigation. The meaning of the word 'cognizance' as given in Chambers 20th Century dictionary is to have knowledge or notice judicial or private. Therefore, mere taking notice of a case is cognizance of the same and after taking notice investigating by the police could not be ordered. Even otherwise the parties have effected compromise and the dispute regarding change in the entries of khasra girdawari has been cordially settled and the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter. No useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing the proceedings. Hence the petition is allowed and the first information report No. 73 Annexure P/1 is quashed. Petition allowed