BASUDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the Magistrate while issuing the process should not pass a detailed speaking order. It is incumbent that he must refer to the gist of the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code and prima facie show that on this material there exist sufficient ground for taking cognizance. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by which the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4 -1 -1989 by which cognizance was taken against Prathapa Narsa, Babuda Thakaria, Sankalia, Bhagwana and Kallia under Sections 147, 148,324,302/149 I. P. C.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on June 6, 1986 a First Information Report No. 46/86 was filed by Panney Singh at Police Station, alleging that Prathapa has caused a knife blow 10 Gajendra and he has died as a result thereof. Thereafter a complaint was also filed by one Madan Singh and in that he alleged that apart from Prathapa number of persons responsible for causing death of Gajendra Singh. This complaint was also sent to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3 ). Meanwhile, it may also be relevant to mention there that one more F. I. R. No. 45/86 was filed by one Lachha Ram, alleging therein that murder of Prathap and Narsa had been committed by 12 accused persons. The police filed a final report on 14 -11 -1986 in relation to the F. I. R. No. 46/86 and a complaint filed by Madan Singh on November 14, 1986. Thereafter another complaint was filed by Panney Singh before the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202, took the cognizance against the accused by his order dated 4 -1 -1989. Against this order, the present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by accused persons, for quashing the same.

(3.) GARG , learned counsel for the accused -petitioners has submitted that a bare reading of the order would show that the learned Magistrate has not looked into the police papers by which a final report was given by the police, against the accused persons and the Magistrate has also not given the gist of ihe witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. Learned Counsel submits that it was incumbent for the learned magistrate to have looked into the police papers as well as the statement and, thereafter, he should have passed proper order showing the application of mind. In support of his contention learned counsel invited my attention to Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan. As against this, Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously urged before me that taking of the cognizance by the Magistrate, should not be interferred under Section 482 Cr. P. C. as the accused will have proper opportunity to defend himself before the Magistrate,learned counsel invited my attention to Kachheru Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh and another, Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh and others, H. S. Bains v. State and Nagawwa v. Veeranna, learned counsel submitted that it is not necessary for the Magistrate to look into the police papers before taking the cognizance.