B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition arises out of the judgment dated September 1,1990, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagore by which the learned Magistrate accepted the Final Report and issued a direction for treating the protest petition, filed by the petitioner on August 18, 1990, as the complaint with a direction to the complainant to adduce his evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C.
(2.) ON July 8, 1990, an F. I. R. was lodged by one Mohammed Saddique regarding the theft of tractor No. RJS 5194 alongwith a trolly. It was stated by the informant in the F. I. R. that on July 6, 1990, at about 3. 00 p. m. be left the tractor and the trolly near the Dharamkanta, Nagaur, behind the hospital and went inside the hospital to see a patient there. When after ten-fifteen minutes, he came near the Dharamkanta, he did not find the tractor and the trolly there and he made a search for the same. ON inquiry, he was informed by one Shri Babu that he had seen the tractor and the trolly being driven by Fateh Mohammed, whereupon he went to the house of Fateh Mohammed and found the tractor and the trolly lying there, but the family members of Fateh Mohammed did not allow him to take the tractor and the trolly. ON the basis of this information, a case under Section 379 IPC was registered and the tractor No. RJS 5194 alongwith the trolly, was recovered. After the recovery of the tractor alongwith the trolly, both Fateh Mohammed and Mohammed Saddique applied for the delivery of the tractor and the trolly on Supurdginama to them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated July 11, 1990, ordered for the delivery of the tractor and the trolly on Supurdginama to Mohammed Saddique. The police, after investigation, submitted the Final Report. After the submission of the Final Report, a notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant, on August 18, 1990, filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, by its order dated September 1, 1990, accepted the Final Report, treated the protest petition as the complaint and directed the complainant to produce his witness. It is against this order accepting the Final Report that the present miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant. The investigating agency, after recording the statements of the various witnesses, came to the conclusion that there appears some civil dispute between the parties, which has been given a tinge to the criminal offence and the learned Magistrate, after considering the record of the case, accepted the Final Report by observing that there appears to be a civil dispute regarding the payment of some money between the parties. He, therefore, refused to take cognizance against the accused Fateh Mohammed. The tractor with trolly was purchased by the complainant from Ganga Ram, which was transferred in his name on July 6, 1990 On the same day, according to the complainant, the tractor and the trolly were stolen from the place near the Dharamkanta, where he left the tractor and trolly and went inside the hospital to see a patient. The tractor and the trolly were stolen on July 6, 1990, in the morning and in the evening, he came to know regarding the whereabouts of the tractor and the trolly and had seen the tractor and the trolly lying outside the house of accused Fateh Mohammed, but still the report was lodged by complainant on July 8, 1990. There may be some civil dispute between the parties regarding the recovery of some amount, may be related to the tractor and the trolly or to some other transaction. The learned Magistrate considered all these aspects of the case and if after consideration of the evidence collected by the investigating agency he came to the conclusion that it appears to be a civil dispute, then in my opinion, the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in accepting the Final Report and refusing to take cognizance against the accused. It is the responsibility and the duty of the Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance to find-out whether the concerned accused is legally responsible for the offence or not and it is only after his satisfaction that the process can be issued. At the time of exercising this discretion, the Court is expected to take into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case before issuing the process and to see that the judicial process should not be used as an instrument of oppression and unnecessary harassment to the accused, against whom the complaint has been filed. The learned Magistrate has properly applied his mind to all the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly accepted the Final Report and rightly refused to take cognizance against the accused-respondent No. 2. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed. .;