JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar dated 18. 1. 1988 whereby the learned Magistrate has discharged the accused non-petitioner Daya Krishna of the offences under ss. 170, 419, 420, 392 and 342 IPC on the basis of the Final Report submitted by Shri Kanti Prakash, Inspector, C. I. D (C. B. ).
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that petitioner Tejumal filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Mansif & Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh on 19 1. 1982 pleading inter-alia, that accused-non-pelitioner Dayakrishna and one more person came to his house on 10 1. 1982 at about 4 PM. THEy were in police dress. THEy gave out that they have been sent by the Dy. S. P. Hanumangarh. Accused-non-petitioner Daya Krishna told him that he is the Reader working in the Office of the Dy. S. P. Hanumangarh whereas his companion told him that he is working as constable in that office. It is alleged that these accused-petitioners told the complainant Tejumal that the Jeep which is in his possession is a stolen property and so, he should hand over all the papers relating to that Jeep otherwise he will be arrested. On this, he handed over all the papers relating to that Jeep to them and they took them. It is alleged that the complainant told them that he has purchased this Jeep from one Ram Prakash Mistry through Mahaveer Master. THEy then took the complainant in the Jeep to Hanumangarh and went to Master Mahaveer and told him that he is indulging himself in the transactions of stolen Jeeps. Mahaveer requested the accused-persons to leave him whereupon he was left alongwith the complainant near Rawatsar Road and later, the driver who was driving the Jeep was also left and the Jeep was taken in possession by these accused-persons. It is alleged that they also took out Rs. 100/- from the pocket of the driver. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith Master Mahaveer went to Ram Prakash Mistry and the told him everything It is alleged that after 2 days of this incident, accused Dayakrishna was found in possession of this Jeep and when the complainant asked him to handover the possession of that Jeep to him but he declined, whereupon, a complaint was made in the court of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh, which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under s. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. In this case, it is alleged that the local police, after usual investigation came to the conclusion that the accused has committed the crime. They were about to file a challan against Shri Dayakrishna whereupon, he approached, S P. C. I. D (C. B ) to withdraw this investigation from the local police. His request was accepted and one Iqbalsingh, Inspector C. I. D. , (C. B.), was put Incharge of this case. He then arrested the accused-non-petitioner on 1. 11. 1982 and the Jeep was recovered from his possession and later, it was handed over to the possession of complainant Tejumal A revision petition was filed against that decision and that too was dismissed. Thereafter, a misc. petition under s. 482 Cr. P. C. was filed before this Court and that too was dismissed and, therefore, the Jeep remained in possession of complainant Tejumal. It was revealed during the investigation that the Jeep was given to Shri Ram Prakash Mistry for change of the engine but later, he purchased it and changed its engine and thereafter, sold it to complainant Tejumal for a sum of Rs. 34,400/ -. It is alleged that Ram Prakash Mistry purchased this Jeep for a sum of Rs. 10,400/- and later, he put a Diesel Engine on it costins about Rs. 17,500/ -. Shri Iqbal Singh, the Inspector, C. I. D (C. B.), therefore, prepared a charge sheet against the accused-petitioner but in the meanwhile, an application was made to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner to transfer this investigation to some other Officer. This investigation was then transferred to Shri R. S. Sharma, Addl. S. P. , who too agreed with the investigation conducted by Shri Iqbalsingh. Thereafter, this investigation was got transferred to Shri Indersingh Bhati, who too agreed with the investigation made by Shri Iqbal-singh. Ultimately, this investigation was got transferred to Shri Kanti Prakash, Inspector, C. I. D. , C. B. under the orders of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner and it was he who felt that no case is made out against the accused-non-petitioner. Before the Final Report was submitted, a protest petition was filed by complainant Shri Tejumal in the court of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Anoop-garh giving all details of this incident in that petition. The learned Magistrate, after hearing all the parties and after considering the evidence that has been collected in the case came to the conclusion that the investigation made by Shri Kanti Prakash, Inspector, C. I. D. , C. B. appears to be sound and, thereafter, he accepted the Final Report submitted in this case.
(3.) I have heard Mr. S. R. Singhi, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner, Miss Sumitra Sankhla, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. U. R. Tatia, the learned counsel for accused-non-petitioner Daya Krishna. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. Mr. S. R. Singhi, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner has raised the following two points before me. It was argued by Mr. Singhi. the learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner that in this case, the complainant has filed a protest petition before the Final Report was submitted by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, that protest petition should have been treated as a complaint and the learned Magistrate ought to have made an enquiry under ss. 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. specially because in this case, the earlier four Investigating Officers have found this complaint to be correct and they were of the opinion that a challan be filed against the accused. According to him, the accused-non-petitioner is an influential man and so, he became successful in getting the Investigating Officer changed one after the other and ultimately, he got an Investigating Officer of his own choice who could file the Final Report in his favour and, therefore, in these circumstances, the learned lower court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant, before accepting that final report, to lead evidence to show that the investigation conducted by Shri Kanti Prakash, Inspector, C. I. D. , (C. B.) is based and tainted one and actually, the investigation conducted by his predecessors was sound and correct. ;