MOHAMMED SADDIQUE Vs. SLATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous petition arises out of the judgment dated September 1,1990, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagore by which the learned Magistrate accepted the Final Report and issued a direction for treating the protest petition, filed by the petitioner on August 18, 1990, as the complaint with a direction to the complainant to adduce his evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C.

(2.) ON July 8, 1990, an F. I. R. was lodged by one Mohammed Saddique regarding the theft of tractor No. RJS 5194 alongwith a trolly. It was stated by the informant in the F. I. R. that on July 6, 1990, at about 3. 00 p. m. be left the tractor and the trolly near the Dharamkanta, Nagaur, behind the hospital and went inside the hospital to see a patient there. When after ten-fifteen minutes, he came near the Dharamkanta, he did not find the tractor and the trolly there and he made a search for the same. ON inquiry, he was informed by one Shri Babu that he had seen the tractor and the trolly being driven by Fateh Mohammed, whereupon he went to the house of Fateh Mohammed and found the tractor and the trolly lying there, but the family members of Fateh Mohammed did not allow him to take the tractor and the trolly. ON the basis of this information, a case under Section 379 IPC was registered and the tractor No. RJS 5194 alongwith the trolly, was recovered. After the recovery of the tractor alongwith the trolly, both Fateh Mohammed and Mohammed Saddique applied for the delivery of the tractor and the trolly on Supurdginama to them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated July 11, 1990, ordered for the delivery of the tractor and the trolly on Supurdginama to Mohammed Saddique. The police, after investigation, submitted the Final Report. After the submission of the Final Report, a notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant, on August 18, 1990, filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, by its order dated September 1, 1990, accepted the Final Report, treated the protest petition as the complaint and directed the complainant to produce his witness. It is against this order accepting the Final Report that the present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant.