P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the III Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad dated 6 -9 -1971 for quashing an order of the Additional Munsif -Magistrate Farrukhabad dated 21 -5 -1971 directing further investigation of the case by the Police Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) MEWA Ram filed a complaint on 6 -4 -1971 against Ram Kishan and 18 others Under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 and 425 IPC in the court of the Additional Munsif -Magistrate First Class Fatehgarh. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and fixed 14 -5 -1971 for evidence Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. On 14 -5 -1971 statement of Deshraj was recorded. Thereafter the case was fixed for zO -5 -1971 for hearing further evidence Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. On 20 -5 -1971 the Magistrate recorded the statement of Kamta Prasad. He thereafter fixed 21 -5 -1971 for orders. On 21 -5 -1971 the Magistrate passed the following order: In this case complaint has been filed against 19 (nineteen) accused persons Mewa Ram complainant accusing the accused persons with the commission of cognizable offences. There appears to be some exaggerations in this case and names of many accused persons are not given in this complaint. Hence an investigation by the police is essential to meet the ends of justice. Let the case be investigated by the police of P.S. Mohammadabad. S.O. to submit his report by 24 -7 -71. Fix 24 -7 -71 for orders. Aggrieved by this order Mewa Ram alone filed a revision before the Sessions Judge Farrukhabad, who has made a reference to this Court for quashing the impugned order. The Sessions Judge was of the view that Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure only two options are provided to the court. He should either enquire into the case himself or direct an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to him or an investigation to be made by a police officer. The Sessions Judge has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Emperor v. Durga Prasad : AIR 1922 All. 211 in support of his view. That was a case in which the Magistrate had recorded the statements of the witnesses Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. But he was not satisfied with their statements. He, therefore, made an order directing the Naib Tahsildar to report after an inquiry. The word 'inquiry' has not been very happily used. Presumably it referred to the investigation by a Police Officer as envisaged under the provisions of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. While dealing with the facts of that case Mr. Justice Lindsay was of the view that the Magistrate was not satisfied with the statement of the witnesses recorded be -r fore him. As such the proper order which the Magistrate should have passed was one of dismissal of the complaint Under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has observed that Under Section 202 the Magistrate has only two options, either to inquire into the case himself or direct a previous local investigation. Justice Lindsay observed as follows: Assuming that this was a fit case for local investigation, there is nothing in Section 202, which empowered the learned Magistrate to have recourse to both the alternatives. The record shows, that he chose one of the two alternatives, namely, to enquire into the case himself, which he did. His order, therefore, directing local investigation was irregular. The facts of the case referred to above are different from the facts before me. In the present case all that the Magistrate has said in his order dated 21 -5 -1971 is that there appears to be some exaggerations in this case and names of many accused persons are not given in this complaint. Hence an investigation by the Police is essential to meet the ends of justice. Thus I find that in the present case the provisions of Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure relating to a dismissal of the complaint were not applicable, as would have applied in the case reported in, 1922 All. 211. In order to decide the scope of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure we shall have to examine the provisions of Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure as well as of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. A perusal of Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly indicates that once a complaint had been filed and the Magistrate has taken cognizance thereof he shall examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and signed by the complainant and the witnesses. If upon a perusal of the complaint supported by the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, if any, the Magistrate is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, he is empowered to summon the accused and issue process against them. Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure envisages a situation where the Magistrate is not satisfied upon the allegations in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded by him Under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and he decides to delay the issue of process to the accused. He has been empowered under this Section to postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against and either to enquire into the case himself or through a Magistrate subordinate to him or to direct an investigation by a police officer. The object of this further inquiry and investigation is to ascertain the truth and falsehood of the complaint. All that the Magistrate has to consider under the provisions of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and not whether there is sufficient ground for convicting the accused. The intention of the Legislature empowering the Magistrate to adopt the courses laid down in Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure was to enable the Magistrate to find out the truth or falsehood of the complaint in order to do justice between the parties. This view can be tested from another angle. Suppose, for instance, a Magistrate receives a complaint after ordering police investigation Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that the police has colluded with the other party and there is no hope of a fair report being submitted by the police after a proper investigation. Could it be said, in those circumstances, that the court is so powerless that it cannot proceed with the enquiry itself Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and must be bound by the report of the Police howsoever improper or malafide it may be, merely because it has chosen to adopt the second course of directing the police to investigate into the matter? Let us now take the converse case. A Magistrate may proceed to make an enquiry himself. He may, on the evidence recorded, have a reasonable belief that some offence has been committed by the accused but for some reason or the other, the complainant is not able to produce sufficient evidence before the court. It has to be borne in mind that at this stage the court is merely entering into an enquiry, as mentioned above, into the truth or falsehood of the complaint. Gould it be said that the Magistrate has no power to direct investigation to be made by the police so as to ascertain the truth merely because he has recorded the statement of a few witnesses? To my mind, if we restrict the modes laid down in Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure as being mutually exclusive, it may lead to absurd and unjust results. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that courts should avoid to give an interpretation which would lead to incongruous and absurd results. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which fails to attain the manifest purpose of the Legislation, courts should avoid a construction which would reduce the Legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction, on the view that the State would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about effective results. In my view, therefore, the use of the word 'or' in Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to be exclusive i.e. one mode of enquiry does not exclude the other mode of investigation. The object of both these methods is to find out the truth and falsehood of the complaint before issuing process against the accused. In my view, therefore, both these modes are open to the Magistrate while he exercises powers Under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) I , therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Additional Munsif Magistrate Farrukhabad directing an enquiry to be made by the police after recording the statements of two witnesses. In this view of the matter I do not find any force in this reference made by the Civil and Sessions Judge Farrukhabad which is hereby rejected. The case will proceed in accordance with law The record will be sent back at an early date. Reference rejected.;