B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 15, 1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
(2.) CHIMAN Lal, on April 10, 1989, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Pali, against the accused Virendra Singh and Surga Lal. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report in the matter. The complainant CHIMAN Lal filed a protest petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, after submission of the protest petition, gave notice to the accused. A preliminary objection was taken by the complainant that before taking the cognizance, the accused have no right of hearing. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, by his order dated April 10, 1989, did not agree with the contention raised by the complainant petitioner and held that as the accused are participating in the proceedings since August 25, 1988, and, therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the complainant and if the accused are given an opportunity of hearing. then it will not be contrary to the law. He, therefore, allowed the accused to-be heard before the question of taking the cognizance is decided. Dissatisfied with the order dated April 10, 1989, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, rejecting the objection of the complainant, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, who, by his order dated November 15, 1989, dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant - petitioner and up-held the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated April 10, 1989. It is against this order dated November 15, 1989. passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, that the complainant has filed this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondents. The short point involved in this case is whether an accused has any right to be heard before the cognizance is taken? At the time of taking cognizance the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence collected by the police during investigation and the Magistrate has to prima! facie satisfy himself from the evidence collected by the police during investigation and the allegations made in the First Information Report that whether there are sufficient grounds and material available to proceed with against the accused. At that stage, the Magistrate is not required to meticulously see the merit or demerit of the case. At that stage, the Magistrate has only to see the evidence produced by the complainant and not the case of the accused. The scope of enquiry at the time of taking the cognizance is limited only to ascertainment Of the truth or the falsehood of the allegations made by the complainant in the First Information Report or the material placed by the complainant before the investigating agency. At that time, the Court has to see the averments made by the complainant and from the point of view of the complainant and the evidence produced by the complainant and the defence story is not required to be Seen at that stage and the accused has no right or locus standi to be heard on the point, whether the cognizance may be taken against him or the process should be issued against him or not. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kanjalgi (1), as well as by this Court in Raghunath Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Amar Singh Vs. the State of Raja;than (2), that the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the cognizance may be taken against him or the process should be issued against him or not. [the filing of the Final Report by the police and submitting the protest petition by the complainant will not, in any change this position because after the submission of the Final Report, also, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the finding given by the investigating officer. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and taking into account the statement of this witnesses and the material collected by the police during investigation and can take cognizance of the case if he is of the opinion that a case for taking the cognizance and to proceed with against the accused has been made out. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires that the accused should be heard before the Magistrate decides to take or not to take the cognizance against the accused. As the accused has no right to be heard before the cognizance is to be taken and, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, was not justified in over-ruling the preliminary objection taken by the complainant and allowing the accused to participate in the proceedings before the cognizance is taken. The order dated April 10, 1989, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge; Pali, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently,this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The order dated Nov. 15, 1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Pali, as well as the order dated April 10, 1989, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, are, therefore, quashed and set aside. .;