- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. Heard Sri G. C. Saxena, counsel for the applicants, and Sri B. N. Singh counsel for the complainant-O. P. No. 1.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 6-3-1993 passed by the Special Judge/ii Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai taking cognizance of the offences under Section 198 (2) of the U. P. Z. A & L. R. Act and 379,427,504 and 506,i. P. C. and 3 of S. C. /s. T. Act and summoning the accused persons therefor. The learned counsel for the ap plicants submitted that in the present case an application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. was filed by the complainant-O. P. No. 1 before the Special Judge/ii Addl. Sessions Judge. The F. I. R. was lodged on the direc tion of the Court concerned and the matter was investigated by the police. The Police submitted a final report under Section 169, Cr. P. C. There was no material on record to summon the accused for the offences stated above. The complainant had himself alleged that the witnesses had not been interrogated by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and the complainant also could not examine himself and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. As such in the absence of any requisite material of inves tigation under Section 161, Cr. P. C. or the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 200 or 202, Cr. P. C. The order of the learned Judge taking cognizance against the accused is bad in law. I have perused the relevant papers.
(3.) IT was contended before the court concerned that the I. O. had not recorded the statements of the witnesses under Sec tion 161, Cr. P. C and the order does not say that the cognizance was taken on the basis of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Section 200 or 202, Cr. P. C. The court concerned was em powered to take cognizance in the proce dure provided under Section 190 (1), Cr. P. C. In the absence of any material the order does not appear to be sustainable in the eyes of law. On the basis of the F. I. R. the accused can be arrested and the investigation can proceed. But in the instant case the matter was investigated and according to the police there was no material to make out a case against the accused. As such the cognizance of the offences does not appear to have taken either of the clauses (a), (b), (c) of Section 190 (1), Cr. P. C. The impugned order, dated 6-3-1993 is set aside and the court concerned is at liberty to proceed with in accordance with law if any evidence under Sections 200 or 202, Cr. P. C. is produced before the court. With these observations the revision stands disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .;