VISHNU DATT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises the question of law, as to whether in a case where on the First Information Report lodged for the incident a case is registered by the police and subsequent to that a complaint is filed in the Court, can the Court proceed with the complaint without receiving the report, regarding the proceedings taken on the First Information Report, filed with the police.

(2.) ON September 1, 1977 First Information Report regarding the beating giving to one Banwari was filed at Police Station Rajgarh against the petitioners. A case under secs. 307, 365,342 148 Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act was found to have been committed and efforts for arresting the accused were also made. Petitioner Mozi Ram is said to have been arrested. About nine months passed in the investigation but the police did not put the conclusion of the investigation before the Court. As the police did not proceed further with matter for a long time, Banwari complainant felt aggrieved and filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu on October 4, 1977 for the offences under secs 307, 147, 365 and 148 I. P. C. The Court recorded the statement of the complainant under sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and called the case diary of First Information Report No. 169 dated September 1, 1977 at Police Station Rajgarh relating to this very incident. The case diary was filed in the Court on December 1, 1977 and orders were issued for filing the report after completing the investigation. ON February 22, 1978 the Court ordered that as the report regarding the result of the investigation has not been filed, the complainant may produce all of his evidence in the court to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. Thereafter, witnesses of the complainant were examined and arguments heard. By the order dated May 25, 1978 the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under sections 307, 365, 148, 342 and section 27 of the Arms Act and ordered for their attendance through warrant of arrest. Mozi Ram who had already been arrested by the police in connection with investigation on the First Information Report filed at Police Station, Rajgarh was on bail and therefore, was called through bailable warrant.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the petitioners have a legitimate grievance against the cognizance taken and warrants of arrest ordered to be issued. The impugned order therefore, calls for interference by this Court of revisional jurisdiction.