HANIF Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this petition, 'whether upon the receipt of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to differ with the conclusions of the police and direct that the accused not sent up for trial and mentioned in column No. 2 thereof, could also be summoned and committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code', stands concluded against the petitioners in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Surat Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1981 CLR 547, wherein it has been held that the Magistrate has the fullest jurisdiction to differ with the conclusion of the police in the report under Section 173 of the Code and direct that the accused person mentioned in column No. 2 thereof, should be summoned and committed to the Court of Session for trial. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India and others, AIR 1978 SC 514; Hareram Satapathy v. Tikaram Agarwala and others, AIR 1978 SC 1568 and Joginder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1979 SC 339. It is needless to refer to these decisions because the ratio thereof is altogether different and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. For the reasons stated this petition stands dismissed and the order dated January 4, 1984, staying the proceedings also stands vacated. Petition dismissed.