FAROOQ HASAN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of (he Judicial Magistrate (2), Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 22 -6 -84 whereby he accepted the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.PC by the police in the case registered on FIR No. 98/84 at the Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur on 6 -3 -84.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the father of late Smt. Anita, who died of the injuries sustained by burns. The petitioner suspected it a case of murder and as such he lodged a report at P.S., Kotwali, Jaipur on 6 -3 -84 on which the above noted Criminal case No. 98/84 was registered under Section 302/34, IPC. The police after investigation submitted a report under Section 173, Cr.PC which was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate by his order under revision. At the very outset a query was made to the learned Counsel for (he petitioner;(l) whether the order under revision is revisable or not; and (2) whether the order of the learned Magistrate dated 22 -6 -84 is a judicial order or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order under revision is a judicial order.
(3.) IN the case of Pukhraj v. Sheeshmal the learned Judge of this Court observed as under: When a report is made to the police charging any person to the commission of the offence and the police after investigation finds that the report is false and gets the report cancelled under the provisions of Section 173 Cr.PC the Magistrate receiving the information and accepting it does not act as a Court and the act of a Magistrate in accepting the police report does not give rise to judicial proceedings. The offence of false charge preferred against the information in respect of such report cannot be in relation to proceedings of a court and a complaint of the court is not necessary for his prosecution under Section 211 IPC. ;