Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jawahara Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 November, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989WLN(UC)232
JUDGMENT G.K. Sharma, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12-1-1988 by which, he accepted the final report submitted by the Police.
2. An FIR numbering 162/78 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar on 1-8-1978 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 & 120B, IPC and also under Section 3/7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The petitioner had submitted a written application to the then Home Minister, Government of Rajasthan in the year 1977. After registering the case the Investigating Officer during investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized documentary materials. After completing the investigation a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the concerned court disclosing commission of the offences by the accused-non-petitioners. Then the case was transferred to Jaipur and was beard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. An objection was raised by the accused persons in relation to the investigation by Shri K.L. Rao, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID), Jaipur, who had formally registered the FIR. The preliminary objection was accepted by the learned CJM, Jaipur vide his order dated 5-1988 and the accused-persons were discharged. The learned CJM observed in that order that "the State was free to entrust the investigation to some other competent officials and the file charge-sheet against the accused-persons. In consequence of the order dated 5-1-1981 the case was re-investigated and the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. did not disclose commission of any offence. The petitioner appeared before the Court and submitted a protest petition. The learned CJM vide his order dated 12-1-1988 accepted the final report submitted by the Police. Aggrieved by this order of the learned CJM, the present revision petition has been filed
3. Notice was given to the non-petitioners and Shri R.N. Khandelwal appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners except the State of Rajasthan which was presented by Shri Rizwan Alvi, Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri Khandelwal raised preliminary objection that the revision petition does not lie against the order accepting the final report Without hearing the revision petition on merit the arguments on this preliminary objection were heard. Both the learned Counsel advanced their arguments and cited law also.
4. Shri Khandelwal, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners relied on the case of Gopal Ram Bhabhda v. State of Raj. 1986 Cr. LR (Raj.) 424. In this case the learned brother Shri Farooq Hasan, J. followed the case of Pukhraj v. Sheeshmal, 1961 (Raj.) 231.
5. Shri S.N. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on 1980 Supreme Court 1883, 1982 Supreme Court Cases 91 and 1977 Supreme Court 2401. He has also relied on the case of Chandan Lal v. Nand Lal 1987 RLR (ii) 314. It is not necessary to discuss the cases of Hon'ble the Supreme Court because the point involved in those cases is quite a different to that one which is involved in the present case. In those cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not dealt with the point as to whether a revision lies or not against the order accepting the final report The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles in the matters when the report has been submitted by the Police Under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In the case where final report is submitted what a Magistrate should do has been emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited above, but in those cases this point as to whether revision petition lies or not against the order accepting the final report has not been dealt with or decided Therefore, the laws/cited by Shri Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance in this case.
6. The case of Chandan Lal (supra) is a revision petition against the acceptance of final report. Shri Choudhary while relying on the case of Chandan Lal argued that revision petition can lie against the order accepting the final report as held by Shri N.C. Sharma, J. In Chandan Lal's case (supra). In this case the case of H.S. Bains v. The State was referred. In this case also this point was not argued as to whether revision petition lies against the order accepting final report. In the case of H.S. Bains (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down that there are only three things to be decided by the Magistrate when the final report is received by him. Firstly; he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action, secondly; be may take cognizance of the offence Under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis to the Police report end issue process and thirdly; he may take cognizance of the offence Under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be. So this principle as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is not disputed. The Magistrate has three courses to adopt. If he takes cognizance of the offence Under Section 190 Cr.P.C. he is to proceed according to the procedure as laid down in the Cr. Procedure Code If he feels that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further, he may drop the proceedings. So whether a revision lies against the order by which the Magistrate found that there is no sufficient ground to proceed further or not. This point has been discussed in the case of H S Bains (supra) and in the case of Chandan Lal (supra). The Magistrate in those cases took cognizance Under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and proceeded further and in the case of Chandan Lal it was found that the Magistrate had rightly dropped the proceedings after going through the record. The Police also submitted final report and the Magistrate agreed with that report and the High Court also concurred it. But this point remained undecided whether revision lies in such matter or not.
7. The case of Pukhraj v. Sheeshmal (supra) is also of a Reference by Addl. District Magistrate, Jodhpur and the Reference was whether the acceptance of the report submitted by the Police was the act of the Magistrate as of Court. In that case a report was made to the Police against some persons for the commission of an offence and the Police after investigation found hat the report was false and it submitted the final report Under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate receiving the report from the Police accepted it. It was held that "the Magistrate receiving the information and accepting it does not act as a Court and the act of the Magistrate in accepting the Police report does not give rise to judicial proceedings. The offence of false charge preferred against the informant in respect of such report cannot be in relation to proceedings of the Court and a complaint of the Court is not necessary for his prosecution Under Section 211 IPC.
8. The argument of Shri Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the act of accepting the final report by the Magistrate is a judicial proceeding and it cannot be said to be Administrative Order. The Magistrate considering the report of the Police and going through the entire record passed the order which is only Judicial order. Against a judicial order revision can lie. I have considered this argument of Shri Chaudhary and I am not convinced with his submission. As held in the case of Pukhraj (supra) that the acceptance of the Police-report does not give rise to judicial proceedings. The Magistrate accepting the report doss not act as a Court. This case of Pukhraj (supra) was discussed in the case of Gopal Ram Bhabhda (supra) and it was observed as under:
While accepting the final report an inference of any proceedings, finding or order by a court cannot be drawn. Under Section 397, Cr.P.C. and 401 Cr.P.C. the revisional court is only competent to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before an inferior criminal court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by the inferior court. In these circumstances, the present revision petition is not maintainable.
9. After considering the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel and going through the case laws cited by them, I am in agreement with the decision in the case of Gopal Ram Bhabhda (supra), in which the case of Pukhraj (supra) was followed.
10. In view of these circumstances I accept the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the non petitioners and hold that the acceptance of the final report by the Magistrate does not give rise to judicial proceedings. The Magistrate accepted that report and while accepting it be does not act as a Court and as such the present revision petition against the order of accepting the final report does not lie.
11. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed on this preliminary objection as mentioned above and there is no necessity into the merit of this case. How ever, it is observed that the petitioner is at liberty to file a complaint before the competent Court in case he is not satisfied with the final report given by the Police and accepted by the Magistrate.