Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted before me that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, inasmuch, as the Magistrate was fully competent to hold enquiry and issue process against the accused persons even after accepting the final form submitted by the police. In support of her contention Mrs. Pal, counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 relied upon a decision reported in the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary v. Raj Kishore Jha 1982 BLJ 627, in which their Lordships have dealt with the matter in detailed by referring various decisions of the Apex Court and finally held that:-

14. The point that whether the Magistrate becomes functus officio after he accepts the report submitted by the police under Section 173, Cr. P.C. has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjaligi AIR 1976 SC 1947 : 1976 Cri LJ 1533 which was primarily the case relating to the ambit and scope of Section 202 and 204 Cr. P.C. In the case before their Lordships the police had submitted charge sheet against some persons on which cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate and thereafter the Magistrate acted on the complaint-cum-protest petition against those persons who were not sent up for trial by the police and the order of the Magistrate was found to be justified by the Apex Court which in its own turn will meet the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate could not have acted on the protest-cum-complaint petition if he had accepted the final report submitted by the police. Similar view was expressed in the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary v. Raj Kishore Jha 1982 BLJ 627. Therefore, in my considered view the Magistrate does not become functus officio if he accepts the final form and it is not correct to say that he could not have acted on the complaint petition to make enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P.C. when the protest-cum-complaint petition unfolded new facts which were not the subject matter of the enquiry by the police or were not present in the case diary and the protest petition was filed on the ground that the order passed by the Magistrate on the basis of the final form was manifestly unjust and the real facts were not investigated or brought in the case diary by the police. It is also not correct to say that if the Magistrate accepts the final form and discharges the accused his order can only be interferred with by the superior Courts and the Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to act upon the protest-cum-complaint petition.

15. In the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary v. Raj Kishore Jha 1982 BLJ 627 their Lordships have differed with the views expressed by the learned single Judge in the case of Bindeshwari Singh v. State Cr. Misc. No. 262 of 1979, decided on 23-5-1980, where it was held that:-

Having discharged the petitioners the learned Magistrate was wrong in proceeding to summon them on the basis of the protest petition. Since protest petition was already on the record when the final form was received, he should have refrained from passing any order on the final form if he missed to proceed with the complaint or he should have considered the final form and could have either discharged the accused or summon them straightway for trial. He could not have done both as he has done in this case. On this view the impugned order is entirely without jurisdiction and is fit to be quashed.

17. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the decision given in the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary v. Raj Kishore Jha 1982 BIJ 627 is fully applicable in the instant case and, accordingly, I hold that even after accepting the final form by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate was fully competent to take cognizance on the protest-cum-complaint petition filed by the informant/complainant and he was also justified to hold enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the acceptance of final form was no bar to him for taking action on the protest-cum-complaint petition, because the complaint-cum-protest petition disclosed additional facts which were not present in the police report submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 13-12-1996, passed by the learned Magistrate in C.P. Case No. 831 of 199 whereby he issued .notices to the accused persons for their appearance for facing the trial on the basis of the enquiry held by him under 5. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.