PALOK BASU, J. - (1.) The substantial issue in the instant six matters is whether a Magistrate/Court before rejecting a "Final-Report" filed by an Investigating Officer, has to hear the accused on his appearing voluntarily or after notice irrespective of the fact whether or not the informant is proposed to be heard with or without a protest petition challenging the said Final Report.
(2.) However, the history of listing of these cases is reprehensible if not condemnable. As early as on 21-7-1994, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench to decide a reference to a Larger Bench made by one of us (Hon. G. P. Mathur J.) in Ranjeet Singh's matter because the Hon'ble the Chief Justice considered the matter to be of general importance. Strangely, it was not listed for nearly three years whereafter the Hon'ble the succeeding Chief Justice passed an order dated 19-6-1997 constituting this Full Bench. The matter however, came to be listed only on 7-9-1999 when it transpired that the aforesaid four criminal miscellaneous applications and one writ petition raising same points were also pending decision by Larger Bench.
(3.) In Ranjeet Singh's referring order it has been noted that in an earlier judgment delivered by Hon. G. P. Mathur, J., reported in Pratap v. State of U. P., 1991 Criminal Law Journal 1669 : (1991 All LJ 688) a view had been expressed that :- "The accused has got no right to be heard at a stage prior to issue of process against him. Neither under the Code of Criminal Procedure nor under principles of natural justice the Magistrate is required to issue notice or afford an opportunity of hearing to an accused in a case where the police has submitted final report but on consideration of the material on record the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence in exercise of his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and directs issue of process to the accused." But, a learned single Judge has in the case of Gajendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of U. P., 1994 ACC 341 preferred a contrary view that : 'Once a final report is submitted then before rejecting the same the accused should be heard because it may be that he may be able to per persuade the Magistrate that the final report was justified and no case is made out against him and it will be unfair to hear only the person filing the protest petition but not the accused.';