Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In pursuance thereof, matter is before this Court.

10. It appears that after passing of the order dated 30.11.2019 in MCRC No.46932/2019, learned Magistrate considered the request for clubbing the closure report alongwith private complaint vide order dated 11.12.2019 and thereafter, heard the petitioner/complainant/objector and ADPO on 25.01.2020 and vide order dated 31.01.2020 rejected the closure report (Final Report) and took the cognizance against the respondents No.2 to 6 under Sections 148, 302, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Against the said order dated 31.01.2020 whereby cognizance has been taken, recently petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has also been filed by the petitioner on 28.08.2003 vide MCRC No.39226/2023. Therefore, both these cases are heard together.

24. Perusal of the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the JMFC, it appears that learned Magistrate proceeded with the case in haste and overlooked the directions given by this court vide order dated 09.09.2019 passed in MCRC No.36918/2019. Vide said order, direction for clubbing of closure report and private complaint was given and thereafter, analogous hearing was directed to be undertaken. Learned J.M.F.C. Sabalgarh failed to do so. Not only this, role of police smacked mischief prima facie, because when the W.P. No.365/2016 was heard on 04.11.2016 then Government Advocate, on the basis of instructions, informed the court that closure report is being filed before the concerned court but that closure report was never filed till 30.11.2019 when order was passed in MCRC No.46932/2019. Thereafter, closure report was placed before the concerned court and analogous arguments were advanced on 25.01.2020 and thereafter, order dated 31.01.2020 was passed in which cognizance has been taken.

27. However, perusal of the order dated 31.01.2020 indicates that learned J.M.F.C. has considered the closure report extensively and thereafter, ensured cognizance. Since learned J.M.F.C. has considered the closure report for the first time because prior to it, closure report was never filed by the police for consideration before the J.M.F.C. and therefore, this is a cognizance taken by the J.M.F.C. while rejecting the closure report and impliedly accepting the objections of complainant and of-course taking into consideration the contents of private complaint also.

28. Perusal of order dated 22.10.2019 at the one hand indicates that learned J.M.F.C. did not consider the contents of closure report and objections filed by the complainant and at the same time, when the said order was set aside by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2019 and remanded back the matter for fresh reconsideration while clubbing the closure report and private complaint, then learned J.M.F.C. objectively considered the same and passed the order of cognizance dated 31.01.2020. At that time, no stay of Hon'ble Supreme Court was operating in favour of accused persons and in fact, proceedings were open. Therefore, learned J.M.F.C. was right in its approach when after due consideration, cognizance was taken. As per the allegations leveled in dying declaration / eye- witness account duly supported by medical evidence, trial is required to be held in the interest of justice. Therefore, this court does not express any opinion about the authenticity / veracity of the allegations or defence but the observation is made for the purpose of considering issuance of cognizance and confined to the extent of consideration over cognizance.