BHAGWAN SAHAI KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 13. 3. 2001 whereby the cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 323, 341, 451 & 504 IPC by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 4, Alwar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 19. 11. 1998, the non- petitioner No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar wherein he claimed that he is a class-IV employee in the Electricity Department and the accused petitioners No. 1, 3, & 4 are his colleagues and the petitioner No. 2 is the son of the petitioner No. 1. He further claimed that the petitioners No. 1, 3 & 4 have formed a clique in the Department. They abuse the other persons working in the Department. He further claimed that seven days earlier, the petitioners No. 1 & 4 had pressurized him to work at the house of petitioner No. 3 and to clean the dishes there. Since his wife was ill, he had declined to do so. Therefore, they became estranged with him. He further alleged that they have been harassing him for the last one and half month. According to him, on 19. 11. 1998 after consuming liquor, the accused petitioners came to his house and they assaulted him. The said complaint was sent to the Police for further investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Although, the Police had registered the criminal case for offence under Sections 323, 341, 452, 504 & 427 IPC, the Police submitted a negative Final Report on 31. 12. 1998 as FR No. 118. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition against the said Final Report. Vide Order dated 10. 2. 1999, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners as aforementioned. Subsequently, the petitioners challenged the cognizance Order before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 directed the learned Judicial Magistrate to consider the entire evidence after recording the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses under Section 200 & 202 Cr. P. C. respectively. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences vide Order dated 13. 3. 2001. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) IN case of Sampat Singh vs. State of Haryana (1993 SCC (Cri.) 376), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly stated that the Magistrate must give reason for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. IN case, no such reasons are given, then the order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Taking a cue from the said judgment, this Court, in case of Gopal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan [2005 (10) RDD 4197 (Raj.)], has held a similar view.