SUKHDAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision seeks to assail the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Nohar dt. 14-10-97 whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the final report and the application under Section 169, took cognizance against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302, 342, 147, 148 and 149, IPC and ordered the accused Gopa Das and Bhagat Ram to be served by arrest warrant as the other accused petitioners Sukhdas, Narayan Das and Sohan Das were already appearing on bail.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 20-6-92 at about 2 a.m. in the night the complainant Mohanlal lodged an oral report to the effect that on 19-6-92 he along with his son Panna Ram reached their village Ghirana at about 8 p.m. after attending their date of hearing in the Court at Nohar, at that time when they were passing through the back side street of the house of accused Sukhdas Swami, at that time the five accused persons came in the street, Sohan Das and Gopa Das were armed with lathis, who caught hold of Panna Ram and lifted him to the Bara of Sukh Das, and then Sohan Das and Gopa Das each inflicted one lathi blow on Panna Ram, and then poured kerosene and set him ablaze. On Panna Ram raising cry, the complainant ran under fear by going in the other street, informed his younger brother Sohanlal, then they along with Gulab Singh, Ratan Singh, Sheokaran, Rupa Ram etc. reached the Bara of Sukh Das, and found Panna Ram burnt and unconscious. At that time Narayan Das came and asked the complainant to take away Panna Ram. On this report a case under Sections 307, 365, 342, 147, 148, 149, IPC, and Section 3(10) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was registered. After completing the investigation the police submitted a final report 'Adam Waqua' and requested for release of the arrested accused persons under Section 169, Cr. P.C. This final report was submitted on 5-12-1992. In the meanwhile, on 23-10-92 the complainant filed a proper complaint for this very incident, whereupon office report was made on 30-11-92, on which date an adjournment was sought on behalf of the complainant, significantly the case was adjourned to 16-12-92, on which date the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 6-1-93 since by then the F. R. has been submitted, on 11-1-93 the complaint was ordered to be attached with F.R. (probably as contemplated by Sec. 210, Cr. P.C.) and thereafter the matter went on being adjourned along with the F. R. for one reason or the other, and ultimately the impugned order was passed.

(3.) The impugned order has been assailed before me on a purely legal ground, to the effect that, where in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the police submits a final negative report, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance against any of the accused persons on that final report, and the power to take cognizance rests only in the Sessions Judge under Section 193, Cr. P.C., or with this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. or on a reference being made to it. The other alternative course open to the learned Magistrate, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is, to hold an enquiry under Section 200 and/or 202, Cr. P.C. on the private complaint already filed by the complainant, and if the requirements of Section 204 are established, to issue process thereunder. It was thus contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, and is liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard was placed on four judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1993 SCC (Cri) 470 : (1993 Cri LJ 1700), Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in 1996 SCC (Cr.) 772 : (1996 Cri LJ 2523), Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1554 : (1998 Cri LJ 4618) and Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2001 Cri LJ 123.