V.N.Varma, J. - (1.) THIS is an ap plication under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the order dated 8-8-1977 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Jaunpur summoning the applicants in a case under Sections 363, 366, 368, 344 and 376 IPC.
(2.) ONE Subedar Singh is a resident of village Surharpur P. S. Jalalpur dis trict Jaunpur, Durgavati Devi aged about 15 years, is his daughter. On 24-1-1977 Subedar Singh found her missing. On 2-2-19'/7 he gave an application to D. M. Jaunpur suspecting foul play against his daughter. When no action was taken on his application, he filed a report at P.S. Jalalpur on 2-3-1977. In that report he gave out that he had learnt that applicant No. 1 (Shesh Nath Chaube) and applicant No. 4 (Ram Janam Singh) had kidnapped his daug hter. On the basis of that report a case under Sections 363, 368, 366, 344 and 376 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found that applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 5 also had a hand in the commission of this crime. The Investigating Officer submitted his report to S. P. Jaunpur. After the scrutiny of the case, it was found that it was not a fit case in which charge sheet should be filed in Court. S. P. Jaunpur passed an order that S. O. Jalalpur should submit a final report in the case. Accordingly, a final report was submitted in the Court of the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate, how ever, did not accept the final report and vide order dated 8-8-1977 summoned the applicants to stand trial under Sec tions 363, 368, 344, 366 and 376 IPC. It is for the quashment of this order that this application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the view that this application under Section 482 CrPC must be allowed. I find that the order which the learned Magistrate has passed in this case is without jurisdic tion and must, therefore, be set aside. Under Section 190 CrPC (new) a Magis trate can take cognizance of a case in three contingencies, firstly upon receiv ing a complaint, secondly, upon a police report and thirdly, upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own know ledge. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no complaint. There is also no police report of facts which would go to constitute an offence or offences against the applicants. The police has already submitted a final report against the applicants in this case. The contention of the learned counsel for O. P. No. 2 is that even though the Magistrate had sum moned the applicants under the second contingency, which is obviously wrong, the case is covered by the third continge ncy as the learned Magistrate had receiv ed information about an offence having been committed by the applicants and therefore he was well within his right to summon the applicants. The Magistrate was said to have received information from the papers submitted by the police including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and also the statement of Durgavati Devi recorded under Section 164 CrPC. In my opinion, information gathered from the papers furnished by the police is not tantamount to information received from any person other than a police officer. The information received, should be from a source independent of the police. In the case before us, the Magistrate had not received information from any source unconnected with the police. That being so, he was not competent to take cognizance -of the offence against the applicants under contingency No. 3 also. The order passed by the Magistrate sum moning the applicants is, therefore with out jurisdiction and must be quashed. In the result, I allow this applica tion and quash the order dated 8-8-1977 summoning the applicants under sections 363, 366, 368, 344 and 376 IPC. It will, however, be open to Subedar Singh to file a complaint against the applicants if otherwise legally permissible. Application allowed.;