GYARSA Vs. STATE OF RAJ S B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. directed against the order dated 7th February, 1991 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City, in case No. 83/1991. In a criminal case, the police gave an F.R. after investigation. Such F.R. was accepted by the court in the absence of the complainant.

(2.) The complainant himself then made a complaint before the court and thereupon the court has taken cognizance of the offence under the complaint. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the court has accepted the final report of the police, it had no authority to review this order as the order accepting the order was a judicial order & it is not an order of administrative nature and the court could not review it's earlier order under Criminal Law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before me Habu Vs. State of Rajasthan,1987 1 RLR 1 and submitted that in this case, it has beem held that such orders are judicial orders and they cannot be subjected to rev ew. In the facts of that case, the F.R. was accepted and the order accepting the F.R. was held to be a judicial order and it was held that such an order cannot be recalled and reviewed by the Magistrate so as to take cognizance subsequently on the application of the Additional Public Prosecutor. Such is not the case before me. In the case at hand, the cognizance has been taken, not on the basis of the application of prosecution but on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant and no exception whatsoever can be taken to such a cause of action being followed by the Magistrate. It is not a case of reviewing or recalling the order of accepting the F.R., but an order passed in the proceedings initiated at the instance of the complainant by a seperate complaint, therefore, the case cited by the counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the point involved in this case. In my considered opinion, even after accepting the F.R. in the absence of the complainant, in case the complainant himself files an istgasa (complaint) and brings such material on record by way of oral or documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the court is debarred from taking cognizance of the offence at the instance of the complaint at this stage, merely because it had earlier accepted the F.R. as given by the police.

(3.) I do not find any merit in this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and the same is hereby dismissed.