NARAYAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that after filing of the Final Report, the learned Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh did not accept the Final Report and has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 352, 427 read with 149 IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners have now approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE only contention that has been advanced before me is that on filing the protest petition it was incumbent upon the Judicial Magistrate to have recorded the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and in absence of the statements no cognizance could have been taken. I find no merit in his submission in view of the ratio indicated in M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another, 1989(1) RCR(Crl.) 395 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 885, wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence even if police report is to the effect that no case was made out and it was not necessary for the Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In the instant case it appears that on perusal of investigation report the learned Magistrate came to the view that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners.