BHOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 47. 7. 86, the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC and at the same time he has directed that the APP should conduct the case and the accused be summoned. Against this order of taking cognizance, the petitioner has preferred this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the non-petitioner No, 2, Mahesh Jhalani lodged a first information report on 6. 2. 86 at Police Station Vidhayak Puri Jaipur which was registered for the offences under Secs. 323 & 341 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that offence under Section 323 IPC alone was made out but as this offence was non cognizable a final report was given and the police did not present a challan. THEreafter, on April 1, 1986, the ! non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the offence under Secs. 394, 341 and 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC. THE learned Magistrate on the same day ordered that report of the Police Station Vidhayakpuri be called under Sec. 210 Cr. P. C THEreafter, on 17. 07. 1986 the learned Magistrate perused the complaint as well as the final report submitted by the police as also the site inspection report, statements recorded under Sec. 16. 1 Cr. P. C. and the injury reports and passed the order taking cognizance for the offence under Sec. 323 IPC and issued summons for the appearance of the accused and this order is under challenge.

(3.) IN Triloki Nath Sinha Vs. State (4) it has been held that a Magistrate can take cognizance on police report of a non-cognizable offence on the report submitted by the SHO. If the officer has not been examined then the conviction cannot be set aside on the ground of this irregularity.