RAMNIWAS Vs. MUNNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioner Ramniwas has filed this petition u/8. 482 Cr. P. C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 5. 11. 1990 of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bari, whereby cognizance for the offences U/ss. 456 & 356 IPC was taken against him.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that initially a complaint was filed by the non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Munni Devi, which was forwarded u/s. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to S. H. O. , PS-Bari for investigation. On this complaint, crime No. 227/89 was registered u/s. 376, 456 & 328 IPC. After investigation, a negative report u/s. 169 Cr. P. C. was submitted by the police to the effect that the non-petitioner No. 1 had made deliberately false report and no such incident took place as mentioned in the complaint. The police also came to the conclusion that she had herself taken the poisonous tablet. The complainant non-petitioner, then again, filed a complaint before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bari on 21. 7. 89 in protest to the final report submitted by the police and prayed that cognizance be taken. Thereafter, the Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant Munni Devi, her husband Lajjaram and Suresh Chand Sharma and issued process to summon the petitioner by a bailable warrant on being satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against him for the offences U/ss. 456 & 376 IPC, vide order dated 5. 11. 90. The revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhol-pur, vide order dated 6. 4. 92. Hence, this petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it is aimed to avoid separate trials or inquiries for the same offence. Sub-section (1) is aimed to avoide simultaneous inquiry by a Magistrate and an investigation by the police in relation to the same offence. The purpose of staying the complaint case is to enable the Magistrate to have the benefit of the police report which would be submitted after the investigation of the police case and further to avoid simultaneous inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code. Sub-section (2) further makes it clear and provides that after submission of the police report u/s. 173 and on such report, cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. In other words, if the accused persons are common in the complaint case and the police report in relation to any offence, and cognizance is taken by the Magistrate against any person on the police report who is also an accused in the complaint case then, the Magistrate is required to inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. This is only to avoid the anomalies arising from taking cognizance of the same offence more than once and also the simultaneous inquiry and trial for the same offence. It may be further explained by illustration. Suppose the police submits a report against two of the accused persons, while in the complaint case, besides those accused persons against whom the police report has been made, there are other accused persons and the Magistrate takes cognizance on the police report against those two persons only named by the police; then, for the remaining accused persons, the inquiry or trial shall be made along with the case instituted on the police report. In such a situation, whenever any inquiry is made by the Magistrate to form an opinion whether process should be issued against the left out accused persons or not, he must take into consideration the police report as well as the evidence collected in the course of investigation, as both the cases stand amalgamated. From the entire evidence, including the evidence collected by the police in investigation, the Magistrate is required to form an opinion whether there is ground against the other accused persons who were left out by the police.