ACHNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioner Mst. Achna for quashing the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thanagazi dated January 10, 1980.

(2.) ON a First Information Report lodged on December 15, 1978, at Police Station, Narayanpur, the police after investigation filed challan against Santu Singh, Bal Singh, Ram Kumar, Bholu. No challan was filed against Mst. Achna. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed by Gangadin complainant on April 21, 1979. The complainant in the private complaint case prayed for cognizance to be taken against Mst. Achna also as cognizance against the other 4 accused persons had already been taken in the case, challenged by the police. Learned Magistrate made a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC and by order dated January 10, 1980, took cognizance against Mst. Achna also. After taking cognizance in the case it was directed that both the cases i.e., one based on police report and the other on the private complaint be connected and tried together.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Lodha learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record of both the cases. The Magistrate recorded the statement of Gangadin, Mahesh Kumar, Mst Mishri and Kishori Lal in the private complaint case and thereafter passed the order for taking cognizance against her. I have gone through the statements of these witnesses and prima facie there is evidence against Mst. Achna for taking cognizance in the case. It cannot be said that there was no material at all on record for taking cognizance against Mst. Achna. Mr. Lodha learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that once the learned Magistrate had accepted the final report made by the police in the police case and had taken cognizance only against 4 male accused persons, learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain a private complaint and to take cognizance against Mst. Achna on the basis of a private complaint. It was submitted by Mr. Lodha that if the complainant was aggrieved he ought to have filed a protest application against the acceptance of final report and thereafter if the Magistrate was not satisfied with the investigation taken a fresh direction could have been given by the Magistrate for further investigation or the Magistrate could have taken cognizance against Mst. Achna if any evidence had come before him during the trial of the police challan case. I see no force in the above contention. There is no bar in the Criminal Procedure Code for filing a private complaint and if the Magistrate was satisfied during the inquiry in the private complaint case that prima facie case was made out against Mst. Achna then the Magistrate was fully competent to pass an order for taking cognizance against Mst. Achhna, also. Thus, I find no error of jurisdiction committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order.