JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Bhagwati Prashad for the petitioner Hari Padam, Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.M. Singhvi for the non-petitioners Nos.2 to 6. 2. Hari Padam, petitioner had lodged a first information report on June 6, 1986 at Police Station, Ghanioorwali at 5.45 PM. In this first information report, Hari Padam had mentioned that his younger brother Roop Ram was coming from his shop known as 'Tehbazari wali shop' towards his another shop situated in Dhan Mandl. At that time a car driven by Kishan s/o Dula Ram came there. In that car Sadasukh son of Godu Ram, Beeru son of Surja Ram, Hem Raj son of Kheta Ram and Hazari son of Dena Ram were sitting. Sada Sukh had gun in his hand. Hazart had also got a 12 bore double barrel gun. Beeru and Hem Raj had pistols in their hands. Seeing them Roop Rant rushed towards his house and while he was rushing, Sadasukh had fired a gun shot towards Roop Ram which hit him and he fell down. Hem Raj and Beeru also fired pistol shots at Roop Ram. Roop Rain died on the spot. It was also mentioned that Hazari fired shots sitting in the car. On this first information report, the officer incharge of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali registered a case under section 302, 147, 148 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On 24th June, 1986 Hari Padam filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur in which he alleged that despite the fact that he had named the persons who were concerned with the commission of the offence in the first information report lodged on 6th June, 1986, the police neither arrested them nor recovered the weapons. It was alleged that the persons named in the FIR were in collusion with the police. It was prayed that the officer incharge of the police station may be directed to investigate the case on the basis of the first information report lodged by him. Copy of this application was supplied to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. It was reported on 3rd July, 1986 that the investigation was being made by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ganganagar. Another application was filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur on 24th June, 1986. Similar request was made in this application also. Copy of this application was supplied to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. It was reported on 3rd July, 1986 that the investigation was being made by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ganganagar. Another application was filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur on 24th June, 1986. Similar request was made in this application also. This application was sent to the Station House Officer of Police Station, Ghamuoorwali for report. A report was sent by the Station House Officer that the investigation is being made by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ganganagar. One more application was made to the Judicial Magistrate on 14-7-86 for calling the police diary and for signing on it. 3. Ultimately the officer incharge of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali filed a charge-sheet for offence under section 302, 336 and 34 IPC and Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. By this charge-sheet the officer incharge of the police station had for worded to the Magistrate two accused persons named Krishna Lal s/o Bahadurram and Om Prakash Lekh Ram as persons concerned with the commission of the offence. It was also mentioned in the charge-sheet that investigation against one more person named Mahipal Peter was still pending under section 173 (8) Cr. P,C. The contention of Bhagwati Prasbad, learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the petition made three applications before the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur for issuing directions to the Investigating Officer to make Investigation on the basis of the first information report lodged by him against the persons named therein he should have directed investigation by the police in view of the assertions made by the petitioner in his application. Magistrate, however, contented himself by calling for a report by the police station. It was next pointed out that in the charge-sheet filed by the officer in charge of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali, on mention whatsoever was made by the officer incharge that he made investigation regarding the commission of the offence against persons whose names were mentioned in the first information report as the offenders. It was also not mentioned in the charge-sheet that on investigation it was found that the persons named in the first information report were not at all connected with the commission of the offence. Charge-sheet was filed against two persons mentioned above who were not named by the petitioner at all in the first information report. It was also not mentioned in the charge-sheet that on investigation it was found that the persons named in the first information report were not at all connected with the commission of the offence. Charge-sheet was filed against two persons mentioned above who were not named by the petitioner at all in the first information report. Further investigation under section 173 (8) Cr. P C was also stated to be pending against a persons named Mahipal whose name also did not find place in the first information report. In such circumstances, virtually there was a final report by the police so far as the five persons mentioned in the first information report were concerned. Mr. Bhagwati Prashad urged that in the back-ground of the above facts and more so when the petitioner had already moved applications before the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur, the Magistrate should have given notice to the petitioner and heard him before taking cognizance and should have also heard him on the point whether the Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance against persons other than those in respect of which police has file 4 charge-sheet. 4. As against this Mr. M.M. Singhvi urged that it is clear from the charge-sheet filed by the officer incharge of the Police Station that investigation is still with the police and there was no final report so far Mr. Singhvi also contended that the Magistrate has already taken cognizance against Krishna Lal and Om Prakash. The Magistrate cannot, therefore, take cognizance against other persons unless evidence was recorded by him. For this purpose reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Bagh Singh & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1985 Criminal Law Reporter (Rajasthan) 417. 5. This is a peculiar type of ease. In the First Information report, the petitioner had named five persons as offenders. Ha had specifically mentioned that Sadasukh had fired a gun shot at Roop Ram which hit him. He had also mentioned that Hem Raj and Beeru had also fired pistol shot at Roop Ram and Roop Ram died on the spot. No mention whatsoever was made by the petitioner in the first information report about Kristian Lal alias Krishna and Om. The Officer Incharge of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali had also recorded the statement of Hari Padam under section 161 Cr. No mention whatsoever was made by the petitioner in the first information report about Kristian Lal alias Krishna and Om. The Officer Incharge of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali had also recorded the statement of Hari Padam under section 161 Cr. PC on 6th June, 1986, and in that :statement, he had stated what he mentioned in the first information report. Despite that, the other incharge of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali while submitting the charge-sheet did not make any mention that what was reported in the first information report by the petitioner was found wrong and that incident was committed by persons other than those mentioned in the first information report. At least this mention was expected from the officer incharge of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali and more so when the Station House Officer knew that the petitioner had made application in that respect before the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur. Ia the charge-sheet, the Station House Officer had only mentioned that investigation against one Mahipal was still pending under section 173(8) Cr. PC. He did not say anything about persons named in the first information report. This clearly indicates that virtually the Station House Officer of the Police Station had given final report in relation to the persons who were specifically named by the petitioner. 6. The decision in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 985 enunciates the principles of natural justice. They should be complied with. When the petitioner had already made two applications before the Judicial Magistrate that the police was not taking any steps against the persons who were named by the petitioner as offenders in the first information report and when the charge-sheet did not contain a single sentence that investigation was made in relation to the persons mentioned in the first information report and when there was no finding by the investigating officer that they were not concerned with the offences it was all the more necessary for the officer incharge of the police station to inform the petitioner that he was not going to investigate the case against the persons mentioned in the First Information Report and also about the action taken by him on the first information report. The informant is interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance because that would be culmination of the first information report lodged by him. The informant is interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance because that would be culmination of the first information report lodged by him. The Judicial Magistrate, Padampur appears to have acted mechanically on the charge-sheet filed by the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Ghamoorwali. He does not appear to have applied his mind to the two applications which had been filed by the petitioner even before the charge-sheet was filed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner was entitled to be provided, by the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur with an opportunity to be heard while considering the matter regarding taking of cognizance on the report submitted by the Police because I have already stated above that so far as the persons named by the petitioner in the first information report were concerned, the report in relation to them was virtually a final report. 7. In view of my this opinion. it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the Magistrate could proceed against the persons other than those against whom charge-sheet was filed only under section 319 Cr. PC. 8. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur dated 10th April, 1987 and the committal of the case made by him in pursuance of the cognizance taken by him and direct him to afford to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the light of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 85 and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, Padampur on 7th December, 1987.Petition allowed. *******