ROSHAN LAL Vs. P HEMCHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 28th February, 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khetri in a case under Section 341/342/349/323/304 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arising out of FIR No. 16/94 registered with Police at Khetri, whereby the police on investigation had found that no case is made out against the accused and had accordingly drawn-up the Final Report dropping proceedings against the accused and closing the investigation which was accepted by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had forwarded the aforesaid complaint to the concerned Police Station for investigation wherein an FIR was registered against the accused as referred to above, and the Police ultimately filed a Final Report in the matter.

(2.) It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner filed a complaint under the aforesaid provisions of law for commission of offence before the learned Magistrate on 14-2-94. Since the learned Magistrate was prima facie not satisfied on the basis of the evidence recorded under Section 200/202 Cr. P.C., he had accordingly directed the police to make further investigation so as to ascertain the veracity of truth regarding offence committed by the accused since a criminal case was registered against the accused, as referred to above.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned order illegally and the same is not sustainable as being contrary to the provisions of law as also the facts of the case since the learned Magistrate had failed to consider that apart from the material placed on the record, prima facie case had been made out for summoning the accused-respondent. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence on the basis of which the police had closed the case by drawing up the Final Report could only be looked into and examined by the competent Court and not by the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has abused the process of the Court. It has further been contended that the respondent is an influential official and he has misused his powers in getting the Final Report. If the material available on the record is to be taken into consideration then it is proved that a prima facie case is established for summoning the accused.