ASGAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitions under Section 482, of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been filed with the prayer that the challan presented by the police relating to F. I. R. No. 43 of 1992, Police Station Kotwali, Churu as well as proceedings initiated on the basis of the challan be quashed.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecu- tor and perused the record of the Criminal Case No. 80/93 State vs. Nasir Khan & Ors.

(3.) IN both these petitions, the following grounds have been urged : (i) That on 25. 1. 94, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu was on leave and cognizance of the offences was taken by another Officer who was looking after the work of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and he had no legal jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences, therefore the initiation of the proceedings is without jurisdiction and it cannot be said that the proceedings have been legally initiated in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (ii) The report on the basis of which cognizance was taken was submitted by the Station House Officer, P. S. Kotwali, Churu without complying with the provisions of Section 173 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 158 and the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 and, therefore the Magistrate was not legally empowered to take cognizance on such a report. (iii) That in this case the report submitted by the Station House Offi- cer, P. S Kotwali, Churu cannot be regarded a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code because after the passing of the order dated 28. 8. 93 by the State Government, it was obligatory on the part of the Police to comply with the directions given by the State Government and that after passing of the order by the State Government, the police officer who was investigating the case ceased to have the jurisdiction to conduct further investigation and submit the report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. It is further submitted that since the report submitted by the police in this case cannot be regarded a report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cognizance of the offences under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 on the basis of such report could not have been legally taken by the Officer acting as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu. (iv) That in view of the facts, the issue of warrants of arrest against the accused persons was not justified because the allegation that they were absconding was false and there was no abscondance on the part of the accused persons and the petitioner Asgar Khan, who was one of the accused, was in fact a practising Advocate and was practising regularly and it would have been in the fitness of things if bailable warrants were issued.