HET RAM BENIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners, against whom cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar, have challenged the order of the learned Magistrate dated May 21, 1985, by which he directed the investigation under sec. 155(2), Cr. P.C. and further the order dated April 17, 1986, by which cognizance has been taken against them for offences under sec. 427 and 120-B, I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this application are that non-petitioner No.2 Harish Thapar, Manager of the factory-J.C.T., Mills, Sriganganagar filed a report before the Police Kotwali Sriganganagar on April 29, 1985 alleging that the labourers and their leaders had spoiled and damaged about 30,000/- meters of cloth of the mill with an intention of causing wrongful loss to the Mill and, thus, they have committed offence under secs. 427 and 120-B, I.P.C. On this report, the police found that the report related to a noncognizable offence and, therefore, it referred the complainant to the court. It appears that thereupon an application under sec. 155(2), Cr. P.C. was filed by Shri Harish Thapar before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate stating the fact of his having approached the police and the direction of the police to refer to the court. It was prayed in the application that since a serious offence has been committed by the accused persons and on a private complaint, necessary material may not be possibly brought before the Court, the investigation by the police was necessary and it was requested that the police may be directed to investigate the matter and put up the report before the Court. On this application the learned Chief judicial Magistrate considered the question and came to the conclusion that in the circumstances of the ease, the police investigation appears to be necessary. He, thereupon, directed the police station, Kotwali, Sriganganagar to investigate the matter under sec. 155(2) and report the result in accordance with law. It appears that the police investigated into the case and filed a challan against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate, thereupon, considered the matter and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material before him to proceed against the accused for offences under sections 427 and 120-B, I.P.C. He, thus, took cognizance of these offences and issued summonses against accused No.1 to 73 by his order dated April 17. 1986. The petitioners have now challenged the order dated May 21,1985 and April 17, 1986.

(3.) The order dated May 11, 1985 is challenged on the ground that order for investigation can be obtained only by the police and such an order for investigation in a noncognizable case, cannot be issued by the learned Magistrate on an application by any private party or even suo moto. It is further urged that when the police refers the informant to a Magistrate under Sec. 155(1), Cr. P.C. the only course open to the complainant is to file a complaint under Sec. 200, Cr. P.C. and, thereupon, the learned Magistrate can proceed under Sections 200, 201 and 202 Cr. P.C. and in exercise of his powers under Sec. 202, he can direct further investigation by the police before any process is issued against the accused. The order dated April 17, 1986 is challenged on the ground that when investigation by the police itself was without jurisdiction and illegal, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences on the police report and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. Since the two matters are connected. I have heard the learned counsel in respect of both of them in a single application under Sec 482, Cr. P.C. although ordinarily when two different order are sought to be challenged, two separate applications should have been filed.