- (1.) The case relates to an occurrence of the year 1988.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that on a complaint filed by the petitioner the police submitted final report after investigation saying that only an offence u/S. 323, IPC was made out which was a non-cognizable offence. The petitioner thereupon filed a protest petition on 21-7-1988. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Pali by order dated 16-5-1989 dismissed the protest petition of the petitioner and accepted the final report but gave liberty to the petitioner to produce evidence u/Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the above order which was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Pali by order dated 23-12-1989 holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to make enquiry u/Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P.C, Against this order of the Sessions Judge, Pall, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition before this Court which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 23-2-1991 and it held "As the order of taking cognizance is a Judicial order and when once the order has been passed by the learned Magistrate, by which he refused to take cognizance against the accused and rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant then he was not competent to proceed with the matter again under Sections 300 and 202, Cr. P.C. The petitioner did not challenge this order. However, the petitioner filed a fresh complaint on 27-4-1989 on the same facts whereupon the respondent No. 2 filed an applicaton on 5-6-1989 praying that no evidence be recorded with respect to the same incident. This application of the i respondent No. 2 was dismissed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali by order dated 30-10-1991. Respondent No. 2 then filed a revision petition against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Pall by order dated 29-7-1992 saying that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali was not competent to hold enquiry u/Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. in view of the order dated 23-2-1991 of the High Court. The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the said order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate is competent to hold an enquiry u/Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. in spite of the fact that final report has been accepted and protest petition has been dismissed. He has placed reliance on 2003 Cri LJ 866 : (AIR 2003 SC 702).;