BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 is directed against the order dated June 8, 1988, of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, taking cognizance of the offence under sections 451 and 352, I.P.C. against the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel (or the petitioners urges that a similar complaint was filed earlier against the accused by the complainant. That complaint was sent for investigation to the police. A Final Report was submitted by the police and was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while considering the question of issuing process on the second complaint med by the same complainant on the same facts, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken into consideration the final report and the material placed by the police in connection with the previous complaint This having not been done, the order under challenge, argues learned counsel for the petitioners, suffers from a manifest defect and the same deserves to be quashed by this Court. Learned counsel has, in this connection, cited Jagdish Ram v. The State of Rajasthan, wherein J.R. Chopra, J. held and observed as under:

(3.) The order of the learned Magistrate dated June 8, 1988, was read-over to me. The order does not contain even a reference to the earlier complaint or the final given by the police and duly accepted by the learned Magistrate. Obviously, therefore, learned counsel is justified in arguing that the learned Magistrate was not alive to the fact that in connection with the same incident a complaint filed earlier by the complainant was forwarded to the police for investigation, in which a final report was submitted and duly accepted by the learned Magistrate. This fact has a material bearing on the question, whether to the same facts, process has to be issued against the accused. The principles laid down by J.R. Chopra, J. Jagdish Rams case, are applicable to the present case in as much as the learned Magistrate here, in this case, also, has not considered the record which was filed by the police along with the Final Report given on the previous complaint. Apparently, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate dated June 8,1988, deserves to be set-aside.