Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the first information report in respect of the incident in question had been registered as Case Crime No. 701A of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kurara, District Hamirpur and the matter had been invested by the Police resulting in the submission of the final report dated 17th August, 2013. Against the said final report a protest petition dated 4th October, 2013 was filed, which came to be allowed vide order dated 22nd October, 2013. Pursuant to the order dated 22nd October, 2013, the Police further investigated the matter and thereafter submitted a second report dated 11th April, 2014 confirming the earlier report dated 17th August, 2013. It is during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings that the complaint dated 1st September, 2014 giving rise to the present application has been filed. On the aforesaid factual premise, he, thus, submits that the complaint dated 1st September, 2014 filed by the opposite party no.2 is in respect of the same incident which took place on 12th May, 2013 and gave rise to Case Crime No. 701A of 2013 was not at all maintainable. Proper course for the first informant of Case Crime No. 701A of 2013 was to file a protest petition against the second police report dated 11th April, 2014. He further submits that the matter does not rest here. The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed protest petition dated 6th May, 2017 against the second police report dated 11th April, 2014 on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur passed an order dated 19th August, 2017 whereby the Court directed the complainant to produce all his witnesses as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter the protest petition dated 6th May, 2017 filed by the opposite party no.2 to the second police report dated 11th April, 2014, which came to be registered as Misc. Case No. 7/12/2011 (Ram Sarovar vs. Jaikaran Singh & Others) came to be decided vide order dated 20th May, 2017 and the complainant was directed to get the statement of himself and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. The Magistrate vide order dated 20th May, 2017 rejected the second police report dated 14th April, 2014 and directed that the protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2 be registered as a complaint case. Complaint Case No. 2663 of 2014 was consolidated with the aforesaid case. Complaint Case No. 2663 of 2014 was to be the leading file. As case No. 2663 of 2014 is at the stage of recording of evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C., accordingly, the same was fixed for 3rd July, 2017. It is, thus, urged that two complaint cases on behalf of the same person in respect of the same criminality cannot be allowed to continue.

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try."

23. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, in the case in hand, the Magistrate after rejecting the second final report has taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which directly permits the Magistrate to look into the material collected by the Investigating Officer at the time of deciding the protest petition filed against a final report. Similarly, there is no judgment of the Apex Court on the subject whereby it has been provided that the Magistrate while deciding the protest petition against the final report and proceeding with the protest petition as a complaint can look into the material collected during the course of investigation before summoning the accused.

25. In the light of the law laid down by the Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment with which I see no reason to differ it can be safely presumed that there is no prohibition for the Magistrate from looking into the material collected during the course of investigation at the time of the summoning of the accused before taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. on the protest petition filed against a final report. However, the Court need not dwell with the aforesaid issue in length and detail as the correctness of the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the protest petition filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 against the second police report dated 11th April, 2014 is not in issue. Moreover the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of Case Crime No. 701-A of 2013 pertains to a different case and cannot be looked into by the Magistrate in an another case. The said issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Km. Rinki Versus State of U.P. & Others reported in 2008 (8) ADJ 402 (DB).

29. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this procedure adopted by the Magistrate is contrary to law. He has referred to Sections 210, 323, and 326 Cr.P.C., which provide for consolidation of cross cases. However, in the present case as the two cases are not the cross-version of the same incident nor a State case and a complaint case regarding the same incident but two independent complaint cases regarding the same occurrence by the same person could not have been consolidated or tried together. As already noted above, had the Magistrate taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the protest petition filed against the second police report vide order dated 20th May, 2017, then in that eventuality there was no difficulty in continuing the State case and the complaint case or their consolidation. However, in the present case the Magistrate vide order dated 20th May, 2017 has taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the protest petition filed against the second police report submitted in Case Crime No. 701-A of 2013. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, no purpose would be achieved by the parties in continuing the aforesaid two complaint cases. Neither the complainant would be benefited by the aforesaid procedure nor the applicants can be convicted twice for the same wrong as it shall be contrary to the well established principle of law against double jeopardy.