- (1.) V. P. Mathur, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by Mr. M. L. Agarwal, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra on 23-7-1984 in Criminal Revision No. 420 of 1983. The learned Judge set aside the order dated 3-5-1983 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Kharagarh at Agra in the case of State v. Betal Singh and others, through which he had summoned the accused-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 17 to stand their trial under Section 379 etc. of the I. P. C. in case Crime No. 15 of 1983.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 30-1-1983 by Kamod Singh Sharma against the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 17 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 427 and 147 of the I. P. C. The case was duly registered at police station. Iradat nagar on 8- 2-1983 as Crime Case No. 15 of 1983. Investigation was made and then the police submitted its report on lf-15-2-1983 through which it mentioned that after persual of the evidence, no case was made out. This final report went up before the learned Magistrate. Simultaneously, a protest petition dated 4-4- 1983 was also filed by the first informant, along with affidavits of four witnesses Suresh Chandra, Raghubir Singh, Pooran and Babu. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report and straightway summoned the opposite parties No. 1 to 17. Against this order Criminal Revision No. 420 of 1983 was preferred by Betal Singh and others. The learned Sessions Judge Sri M. L. Agarwal, (the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge) disposed it of on 23-7- 1984. He allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 3-5-1983 passed by the learned Munsif- Magistrate, Kheragarh. It is against this order that the pre sent revision has been filed. The two leading cases regarding the legal position which arises for consideration in such cases are : (i) Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Singh, AIR 1968 SCI 17; and (ii) H. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), AIR 1980 SC 1883.
(3.) IN Abhinandan Jha's case, the following law was laid down : (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure does notuse the expressions 'charge-sheet' or 'final-report'. But it is understood in view of the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report filed by the police, under Section 170 of the Cr. P. C. is referred to as a 'charge-sheet'. But in respect of reports sent under Section 169 i. e. when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the same is termed variously in different states as either 'referred charge' or 'final report' or 'summary'. (2) The use of the words, "may take cognizance of any offence" in sub-section (1) of Section 190 imports the exercise of a 'judicial discretion' and the Magistrate who receives the report under Sec tion 173, will have to consider the said report and judicially takes a decision, whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. (3) There may however be instances when the Magistrate may take the view on a consideration of the Final Report, that the opinion formed by the police is not based on a full and complete investi gation, in which case, he will have ample jurisdiction to give direction to the police under Section 156 (3) to make a further investigation. If ultimately the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence under Section 90 (i) (b) of the Cr. P. C. notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police expres sed in the final report In the case of H. S. Bains (supra) the observations of the Supreme Court may be summarised as follows : "section 190 of the Cr. P. C. (old) was slightly different. Clauses (i) (b) used to read :- "upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer. " In clause (1) (c) after the word 'knowledge' the words "suspicion" occurred which have now been omitted. Chapter-XV (Sections 200 to 203) of the Code deals with complaints to Magistrates. The Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint is required by Section 200, to examine the complai nant and the witnesses present, if any Section 202, Cr. P. C. provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance of a case on the complaint, may if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and can either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purposes of deciding whether or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Section 203 of the Cr. P. C. empowers the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint, if after considering to statement under Section 200. Cr. P. C. and the result of enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. he is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.;