Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1257 (RAJ)

Sharda Choudhary v. State of Raj.

1999-10-01

AMRESH KUMAR SINGH

body1999
Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-petitioner No.1 and the learned counsel for the Non-petitioner No.2. (2). This petition is filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code by which it is prayed that the First Information Report No. 389 of 1995 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town be quashed. (3). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Non-petitioner No.2 Devendra Kumar had filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 03.12.1993 alleging the commission of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code & that complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Hanumangarh under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation and, in compliance with the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the Police registered the First Information Report No. 543 of 1993 at the police station. An investigation was conducted and after investigation the police submitted the final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The complainant (Non-petitioner No.2) filed a protest petition on 12.12.1994 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The protest petition and the final report submitted by the police were considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh and on 12.12.1994, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh accepted the final report submitted by the police and directed the case to be listed for recording the evidence of the complainant under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, treating the protest petition as a complaint. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 05.07.1995 the complainant (Non-petitioner No.2) filed another complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on the same facts as were alleged in the first complaint and in the protest petition. The second complaint was also forwarded to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Hanumangarh Town by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and in compliance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate another first Information Report No. 389 of 1995 was registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh. (4). The second complaint was also forwarded to the Station House Officer of the Police Station Hanumangarh Town by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and in compliance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate another first Information Report No. 389 of 1995 was registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh. (4). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Non-petitioner No.2 has abused the process of the court by filing the second complaint on the same facts on which the first complaint as well as the protest petition has been filed and, therefore, the First Information Report No.389 of 1995 of Police Station Hanumangarh deserves to be quashed as it amounts to abuse of the court. (5). I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears from the certified copies of the complaints and the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh that after the submission of the final report in respect of the First Information Report No. 543 of 1993, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final report and directed the protest petition of Non-petitioner No.2 to be treated as complainant and adjourned the court for recording the evidence of the complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order dated 12.12.1994 clearly shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the protest petition filed by the Non-petitioner No.2 and decided to conduct an inquiry under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In view of this order, it was not open to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass another order subsequent to 12.12.1994, under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the police to register the case and investigate in the matter. The law is well established in this regard. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not open to him to avail all the powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (6). The law is well established in this regard. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not open to him to avail all the powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (6). For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on the second complaint filed by the Non-petitioner No.2, directing the Station House Officer of the Police Station Hanumangarh to register the case and to conduct the investigation deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the First Information Report No. 389 of 1995 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town stands quashed. (7). It is not known whether the judicial enquiry initiated by order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh is pending or has been concluded. In case the above mentioned enquiry is still pending, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh should complete it as soon as possible. (8). This petition is disposed of accordingly. (8). The certified copies of the complaints as well as the protest petition filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in court shall form part of the record of this case.