BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first case is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , 1973 against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated October 31, 1984 by which he dismissed the revision petition filed against the order of the learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar holding that the reports submitted by the Police under Section 174, Cr. P. C. , cannot be treated as a report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. for the purpose of taking cognizance on it and the petition moved will be treated as complaint. THE facts of the case may be summarised thus.

(2.) IN January 1978, the petitioner's daughter Mst. Neelam was married with Tarasingh Kumar son of Banarasidas at Sriganganagar. On July 7, 1978 at 6 P. M. , she was brought to General Hospital, Sri Ganganagar in a seriously burnt condition and was declared deal there. The same day, the medical jurist sent a note about it to the S. H. O. , Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for information and necessary action. On its basis, a case under Section 174, Cr. P. C. was registered. On the request of the police, post mortem examination was conducted on July 8, 1978 at 11. 30 A. M. by a Board of three doctors. The same day, statements of petitioner Babulal's wife Prakash Devi and his son Vijay Kumar, Mathura Devi (Neelam's mother-in-lay) and others were recorded. On July 9, 1978, the petitioner Babulal moved an application before the S. H. O. , Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for registering a case under Section 302, I. P. C. But no case was registered. A remark was given on this application that proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P. C. were already going on. Letters were written to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister of INdia. The C. B. I. made certain enquiries at Ganganagar regarding this case. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ petition No. 2609/83 in the Supreme Court and it was. dismissed on February 24, 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint against Mathura Devi, Tarasingh Kumar, Asha Rani and Mahesh Kumar under Section 302, I. P. C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. IN July, 1984, the case was transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Court of Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, who refused to take cognizance on the report forwarded under Section 174, Cr. P. C. Against this order a revision petition was filed and it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. On January 5, 1985, the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the special leave petition with liberty to move the High Court. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. Para no. 2 of the petition runs as under : "that the instant petition raises substantial questions of law of great public importance and needs an authoritative decision by this Hon'ble Court: I. WHETHER in the death cases, on investigation two reports are required to be submitted; one report pertaining to apparent cause of death (the preliminary report) to be submitted under section 174 sub-section (2), to the Executive Magistrate and another Final Report on completion of investigation to be submitted under Section 173 Cr. P. C. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate competent to take cognizance ? II. WHETHER the expression every investigation under the Chapter existing in sub-section (1) of Section 173, Cr. P. C. covers the process of investigation, being carried under Section 174, Cr. P. C. also and as such a report of investigation being conducted to the type of the cases mentioned therein under Section 174, Cr. P. C. is ultimately to be submitted under Section 173, Cr. P. C. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate ? III. WHETHER the State can deprive a citizen (complainant) in State cases from the benefit of report of investigation for the purpose of courts powers to be exercised under Section 190 Cr. P. C. and place the complainant in vaccum to prove his case at his risk and responsibility inspite of the fact that there may be sufficient material in the report of investigation submitted to the concerned judicial Magistrate and take a stand before the court not to consider the report of investigation for purpose of taking cognizance? IV. WHETHER the correct interpretation of provision of sub section (2) of Section 210 Cr. P. C. make it clear that expression "police Report" occurring in it may cover even the negative Police Report also?"

(3.) THE police is required to submit a report under Section 174 to the District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is also required to submit another report under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C. to the Judicial Magistrate if during investigation under Section 174, Cr. P. C. it is found that an offence has been committed and on further investigation under Section 173, Cr. P. C. it is found to be so. If investigation under Section 173, Cr. P. C, 1973 reveals that no offence was made out there is no question of submission of the positive report (challan) under Section 173, Cr. P. C, 1973 in respect of the same Occurrence. QUESTION NO. 3 :