UDAIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions have been filed by the petitioners Udai Ram, Krishna Ram and Mst. Birdli in the following circumstances On 9 th January, 1980, Smt. Kesar, wife of petitioner Udai Ram, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant) lodged a report at police out post Sankhu against the petitioner in these petitions and two other persons, namely, Naurang Ram, the father of petitioners Udai Ram and Krishna Ram and Smt. Birdali the mother of the said petitioners. In the said report, it was stated that the aforesaid five accused persons mentioned in the report caught hold of the complainant and that petitioner Udai Ram sprinkled kerosene on the clothes of the complainant and set the same on fire and that she raised an alarm where upon a number of persons from the neighbourhood arrived and the fire was extinguished and she was saved. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case under Sections 356, 352 and 307/114 I.P.C was registered against the accused persons at P.S. Hamirwas. The case was investigated by SHO, PS Hamirwas and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh and after investigation, the police submitted a final report to the effect that no incident, as stated by the complainant, had taken place. Before the said final report could be considered by the Magistrate, the complainant filed the private petition in the court of Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu against the acceptance of the final report and in view of the said petition, the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu called for the papers. On 5th May, 1980, the Chief Judl. Magistrate perused the final report submitted by the' police and recorded the statement of the complaint under Section 200 Cr. PC and, after observing that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC the police diary, the site plan are corroborated by the statement of the complainant recorded Under Section 200 Cr. PC took cognizance of the offence under Section 342/336 against the petitioner Udai Ram and offence under Section 336/114/342 IPC against four other persons named in the FIR while the aforesaid proceedings were pending before the Chief Judl. Magistrate, Churu, the complainant moved the State Government for further investigation into her complaint for the reason that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh, had not properly investigated the case and that he was supporting the accused persons and thereupon the State Government referred the case for further investigation to the CID (CB) Rajasthan Jaipur, The matter was investigated by the CID (CB) Rajasthan Jaipur and after investigation, it was found that the offence under Section 307/336/342/114 IPC was made out against the accused persons. In view of the aforesaid investigation, a charge sheet dated 9th January, 1981 was submitted in the court of Munsif and Judl. Magistrate Rajgarh. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, the Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Rajgarh by his order dated 27th January, 1981 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 307, 336, 342 and 144 IPC against the five accused persons mentioned in the charge sheet and also passed the order of calling of the record from the court of Chief Judl. Magistrate Churu. The Chief Judl. Magistrate by his order dated 4th April, 1981 sent the papers to the court of Munsif and Judl. Magistrate Rajgarh for the reason that the police had filed the challan under Section 307 IPC in that court and in view of the provisions of Section 210(2) Cr. PC both the cases should be tried by the same Magistrate as on a police report. After the receipt of the papers in his court, the Munsif and Judl. Magistrate Rajgarh, passed the order dated 15th May 1981, whereby he committed all the live accused persons to the court of sessions for trial The Sessions Judge, Churu after examining the papers, passed the order dated 7th July, 1982, discharging accused Naurang Ram and Smt. Birdli on the ground that, no offence was disclosed as against the said accused persons. The Sessions Judge, however, directed that a charge under Section 307 be framed against petitioner Udai Ram and a charge under Section 307 read with Sections 114 and 342 IPC be framed against the petitioners Krishna Ram and Smt. Dhani. Thereupon the petitioners filed these two petitions S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 286/82 has been filed under Section 397/402 Cr PC and in that petition, the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order dated 7th July, 1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu framing charges against the petitioner and has prayed that the said charges be quashed. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 227/82 has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC ana in the said petition, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings that were taken by the Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Rajgarh on the charge sheet that was filed by the police before him.

(2.) THE first contention that was urged by Shri S.K. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners was that it was not competent for the police to further investigate the matter after the police had filed the final report and that the charge sheet that was submitted by the police in the court of Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Rajgarh, on the basis of the further investigation was, therefore, without jurisdiction and proceedings that were initiated by the Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Rajgarh on the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet were also without jurisdiction. In support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Goyal and placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Hanuman v. State and the decision of the Madras High Court in Namasivayam v. State 1982 Cr LJ 707

(3.) IN Namasivayam v. State 1982 Cr LJ 707, the police after completing the investigation had submitted a final report and the said final report was accepted by the Magistrate and thereafter another Inspector of Police conducted a fresh investigation on the original complaint and on the basis of the fresh investigation, a charge sheet was filed. A learned Judge of the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings that were initiated on the basis of the subsequent charge sheet on the view that the order that was passed by accepting the final report was a judicial order and in view of the aforesaid order, it was not open for a police officer to reopen the irvestigation unless the order passed by the Magistrate accepting the final report was set aside by higher court or a fresh complaint was filed by the complainent and permission of the Magistrate for reinvestigation had been obtained.