Allahabad High Court
Smt. Poonam Shah vs State Of U.P. on 21 May, 2008
Author: Vijay Kumar Verma
Bench: Vijay Kumar Verma
JUDGMENT Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
1. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "the Cr.P.C."), order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar in case No. 299 of 2007 (Smt. Poonam Shah v. State of U.P.) under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, 'the D.P. Act'), P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar has been challenged. By the impugned order, the final report in case crime No. 530 of 2006 of P.S. Chakeri has been rejected and the protest petition filed by the applicant has been treated as complaint.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in brief, are that the applicant Smt. Poonam Shah had lodged an F.I.R. on 3.10.2006 at P.S. Chakeri, where a case under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered at crime No. 530/06 against Smt. Malti Devi, Bal Krishna Sahai, Rahul Sahai and Rajiv Kumar. It appears that after investigation, final report was submitted by the police. When notice of the final report was issued to the complainant (applicant herein), she filed protest petition against the final report along with certain affidavits. After hearing the applicant's counsel, the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 17.10.2007 rejected the final report and treated the protest petition of the applicant as complaint. Being aggrieved the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned order.
3. I have heard Sri P. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there was sufficient material in the case diary to take cognizance and issue summons to the accused to face the trial. It was also submitted that although the learned Magistrate has rejected the final report vide impugned order, still then cognizance has not been taken and the protest petition filed by the applicant has been treated as complaint, which is not in accordance with law. Next submission made by the learned Counsel was that there was no need to treat the protest petition as complaint and on the basis of the affidavits submitted by the applicant in support thereof, the learned Magistrate could take cognizance. It was also submitted that if in the opinion of the learned Magistrate, the material in the case diary was not sufficient to take cognizance, then direction for further investigation ought to have been issued to the investigating officer and since, the learned Magistrate did not adopt the proper procedure in dealing with the final report, hence impugned order should be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction.
5. The learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, whereby the protest petition filed by the applicant has been treated as complaint after rejecting the final report. It was also submitted by the learned A.G.A. that on submission of the final report, if the material in case diary is not sufficient to take cognizance and issue summons to the accused, then merely on the basis of the affidavits filed in support of the protest petition cognizance cannot be taken by the Magistrate.
6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, I agree with the submission of the learned A.G.A. that merely on the basis of the affidavits filed in support of the protest petition against the final report, cognizance cannot be taken by the Magistrate. Reference in this regard may be made on the case of Surya Bhan v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2007 (58) ACC 126. In the case of Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Anr. 2003 (46) ACC 182 (S.C.), the three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there cannot be any doubt or dispute that only because the Magistrate has accepted the final report, the same by itself would not stand in his way to take cognizance of the offence on a protest/complaint petition. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above mentioned ruling, it is crystal clear that even after acceptance of the final report by the Magistrate, the complainant can file protest petition and such petition can be treated as complaint and after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C., summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. can be passed, if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pakhando and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2001(43) ACC 1096 had the occasion to consider the matter regarding the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate/Court on submission of the final report by the police. Having taken various authorities into consideration, the following observations have been made by the Division Bench in para 15 of the judgement at page 1100 of the report:
From the aforesaid decisions, it is thus clear that where the Magistrate receives final report, the following four courses are open to him and he may adopt any one of them as the facts and circumstances of the case may require:
(I). He may agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before so doing, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant' or (II) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or (III) he may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner; or (IV) he may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.
8. Although in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pakhando and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra), order for further investigation could be passed by the learned Magistrate, but in my opinion, the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in not making order for further investigation and treating the protest petition of the applicant as complaint. The entire facts of the case are in the knowledge of the applicant and he may lead evidence in the Court of Magistrate concerned to substantiate the allegations made by her against the accused in her first information report and protest petition submitted by her against the final report. This Court has specifically held in the case of Pakhando and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra) vide Clause (IV) that 'the Magistrate may without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.' The learned Magistrate in instant case has adopted the procedure laid down in Clause (IV) ibid. Therefore, for all these reasons, interference by this Court in the impugned order is not warranted.
9. Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being devoid of merit, is hereby rejected.
The learned Magistrate concerned is directed to expedite the enquiry under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. and pass suitable order under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. as the case be.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Magistrate concerned for necessary action.