- (1.) AMAR Saran, J. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned AGA.
(2.) IN this criminal revision an order dated 17-12-1998 passed by JM 1, Gorakhpur, in F. R No. 91/98, Smt. Malti Devi v. Shaileshmani, under Sections 467, 468, 420, 364, 302 and 506 IPC, PS Jhanga, District Gorakhpur, has been challenged. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contends that final report was submitted in this case but the Court below has not summoned the applicant on the protest petition filed by the informant but has ordered further investigation on the application of the complainant, Smt. Malti Devi, under Section 156 (3) The lower Court has observed that in a grave offence of kidnapping and murder the investigating officer has concluded the investigation hurriedly, i. e. within one day of the case being registered, and submitted a final report. He, therefore, rejected the final report and returned the case-diary and the documents to the SO, PS Jhanga for further investigation and for the report dated 22-1-1999. According to the learned Counsel for the revisionist, the judicial magistrate could not have passed such an order as he had only the options of accepting the final report or rejecting it summoning the accused or directing the applicant to file a complaint. I am not inclined to accept this submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionists.
(3.) IT has been specifically held in Gangadhar Janardan Khatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 2005 (1) JIC 202 (SC) : 2004 (50) ACC 650, in paragraph 9, that even in cases where in the opinion of the police no offence appears to have been committed, three courses are open to the Magistrate, i. e. (1) he may accept the report and dropt the proceedings, or, (2), he may disagree with the report and take the view that there is sufficient ground for further proceedings and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or, (3), he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. I have taken the same view in an earlier decision in Ram Ji and Ors. v. Bhagwan Prasad and Anr. , 2006 (2) JIC 449 (All) : 2006 (55) ACC 351.;