A.C. Goyal, J. - (1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition u.s. 482 Cr.P.C. is filed against the order dated 19.8.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, in Criminal Revision No. 89/99, whereby the cognizance order dated 23.8.1999, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, in Criminal Case No. 113/99 (1/98), was set aside.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Raghunathgarh on 15.3.1997, with the averments that while he was going in his jeep, 8-10 persons including the accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 7, who were standing on the way, started throwing stones, damaging the jeep and causing grievous injuries to the complainant. FIR No. 73/97, was registered u/ss. 147, 341, 323, 336, 427 r/w 149 IPC. After investigation, final report (negative) was submitted and same was accepted on 18.11.1997. There- after the complainant submitted a complaint on 2.2.1998, on the same facts against the accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 7. The learned Magistrate after enquiry as provided u/ss. 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint u/s. 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 4.9.1998. The revision filed against this order was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, vide order dated 29.6.1999 and matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused- respondents Nos. 2 to 7 for the offence u/ss. 147, 341, 323,336,427/149 IPC vide order dated 23.8.1999. The accused-respondents filed revision against this order and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, vide impugned order allowed this revision and quashed the order of taking cognizance. Hence this petition.
(3.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, has set aside the cognizance order on the ground that the complainant appeared before the learned Magistrate and protested the F.R. and after hearing learned counsel for the complainant, the F.R. was accepted and thus in view of the three judgments of this Court reported in 1989 (2) WLN 141, 1991 (1) WLN 510 and 1998 WLC (Rajasthan) UC 645, it was held that second complaint on the same facts can not be filed. Learned counsel for the complainant- petitioner contended that there was no reason to set-aside the order of cognizance and the second complaint ;s permissible even after acceptance of F.R. Reliance is placed upon Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra & Anr., 2001 (3) Crimes 205 (SC) . According to this judgment final report was submitted and on submission of protest petition by the complainant, the learned Magistrate held an enquiry u/s. 202 Cr.P.C. and then took cognizance. High Court set-aside the cognizance order in revision but the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that order of Magistrate taking cognizance was lawful. Another judgment relied upon was delivered by this Court in Chandan Mal Jain & Ors, v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1999 (1) WLC (Raj.) 196 , wherein it was held that Magistrate can take cognizance of complaint after accepting the final report. In both the judgments referred above, the facts were quite different from the facts of the case in hand because according to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, cognizance was taken on protest petition and according to the judgment of this Court, no protest petition was submitted but in the case in hand the complainant appeared through his counsel after submission of the F.R. and protested the F.R. and learned Magistrate accepted the F.R. after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and in view of these facts the cognizance can not be taken on the same facts narrated in the second complaint. As stated above learned counsel for the accused-respondents relied upon the three judgments referred in the impugned order. In all the three judgments, this Court held that when the final report is accepted after hearing the parties, no second complaint on the same facts is maintainable and there is no reason to take a different view. The complainant appeared before the learned Magistrate and protested the final report submitted after investigation and after hearing the parties the learned Magistrate accepted the F.R. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Hence dismissed. Petition dismissed.;