NARPAT KARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. , petitioner, Narpat Karan has challenged the legality of the order dated 17/9/83 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur and also the order of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 6th July, 1984, affirming the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) ON 6/12/79, petitioner, Narpatkaran, Land Acquisition Officer filed a report against Ram Chander non-petitioner No. 1 with the allegation that during his tenure as Cashier in the Department, he embezzled Government money. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against Ramchander in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against Ramchander for the offence under Sec. 409, LP. C. Subsequent thereto, an application under Sec. 190 (c) Cr. P. C, was filed on behalf of Ramchander with the prayer that for the reasons mentioned in the application, cognizance, against Narpat Karan Land Acquisition Officer, Jodhpur may be taken and he (applicant Ramchander) being innocent, be discharged. The learned Magistrate, on examination of the police papers, was of the opinion that proper investigation was not made by the police in the case and for the reasons given in his impugned order, he directed re-investigation of the matter by the police. The order for directing re-investigation was challenged by the State Government by filing revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned Sessions Judge, as stated earlier, rejected the application on 6th July, 1984, The findings of the two courts below have been assailed and inherent jurisdiction of this Court invoked by the petitioner Narpat Karan.

(3.) THE case of Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh (2) relied upon by Mr. Singhvi. Mr. Singhvi also relates to the provisions of Secs. 156, 202 and 204, Cr. P. C. THEir Lordships enumerated the various ways open to the Magistrate on receiving a report from the police and were pleased to hold that where a Magistrate orders for investigation under S. 156 (3) of the Code by the police before taking cognizance and receives the report thereupon, he can act on the report and discharge the accused or straight-away issue process against the accused or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action under Sec. 190. THE above two authorities are of no help to the petitioner for the reason that the provisions of Sec. 173 (4), Cr. P. C, were not under consideration before their Lordships while dealing with those cases.