- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 20-10-2004, the Court below has set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 21-6-2003 whereby he had taken cognizance in the case under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 427, IPC where the police had submitted the final report and the complainant had made a protest petition against that report. The mere ground, which finds mention for accepting the revision against the order of the Magistrate by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is that the procedure, as prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been followed and the cognizance of the case has been taken by the Magistrate. The Court below has also in this context relied upon the case law of Anil Kumar Chauhan v. State of U. P. , 2004 (1) JIC 982 (All ). The learned Counsel contends that even though the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case of Anil Kumar Chauhan (supra) has held that while taking cognizance on the final report submitted by the police, the Court should adopt the procedure of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, yet there are several other cases of Division Bench and that of the Apex Court, which give four options to the Magistrate while dealing with the final report submitted by the police and objected to by a protest petition by the complainant. These options have been specifically explained in the Division Bench decision in the case of Pakhando and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2002 (1) JIC 104 (All), and it also finds reference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge referred to above. The other cases in the same context are Mahendra Pal Sharma and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2003 (1) JIC 972 (All) : 2003 AAC (Crl) 30; Ranjeet Singh and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2004 (40) ACC 342 (FB); Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1985 SC 1285 and Rupam Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, 1995 (1) JIC 1155 (SC) : (1995) 6 SCC 194. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court, it is quite evident that on the receipt of the final report there are four options available to the Magistrate within which he may adopt any one of it. After such receipt of final report, first of all the Magistrate should allow hearing to the complainant and thereafter either he should accept the report or may take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. and issue process straightaway to the accused. Thirdly the Magistrate may order further investigation or he may without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) treating the protest petition of the complainant as criminal complaint and proceed in accordance with Chapter XV of Cr. P. C. In the present case, the learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant in the protest petition, had taken cognizance of the case under Section 190 (1) (b) and has issued the process straightaway. The said order in any case could not be said to be erroneous and should not have been interfered with in the revision by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
(3.) THE order so passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge requires interference. THE revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 20-10-2004 is hereby set aside. The matter is sent back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to take up the revision and pass orders afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Revision allowed. .;