JUDGMENT 1. - Though the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 426/98 & 427/98 arise out of F.I.R. Numbers 276/97 dated 18.12.97 and 280/97 respectively but since the facts and legal points for disposal of these petitions are common and, therefore, looking to the convenience, all these petitions are proposed to be disposed of by this common order. 2. In short, it may be mentioned that the complainant-petitioner Ram Ratan lodged F.I.R. No. 276/97 on 18.12.97 with the police station, Ratangarh, on which a case under Sections 379 & 447 I.P.C. was registered and investigated resulting in filing of a final report (unoccurred) before the court of Addl. Chief Judi. Magistrate, Ratangarh on 21.4.98. Similarly, the same complainant Ram Ratan got registered F.I.R. No. 280/97 on 24.12.97 for the alleged offences under sections 457 and 436 I.P.C. on which investigation was conducted and, resultantly, final report (unoccurred) was submitted before the same court on 21.4.98. 3. On filing of both the aforesaid, final reports on 21.4.98, the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate ordered for issuance of notices, in both the final reports, to the first informant Ram Ratan to show cause against acceptance of the final reports filed by the Officer-in-charge of police station, Ratangarh, on 29.4.98. 4. Undisputedly, Bahadur Singh F.C., of police station, Ratangarh was despatched to get service of notices affected on Ram Ratan for 29.4.98. He returned the notices with the report that the first informant Ram Ratan refused to accept the notices, and accordingly, for supporting his alleged refusal to accept the notices, he obtained signatures of two so called motbir witnesses of the aforesaid proceedings, who are Hira lal and Nemi Chand, on the notices issued in each case. Resultantly, on 29.4.98, at the time when the final reports were taken up for disposal by the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, holding that since the first informant Ram Ratan had refused to accept the notices issued, as above, and, accordingly, the service of the notices having been affected duly on him, simultaneously, vide impugned orders dated 29.4.98, the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate while accepting the final reports, as given by the Officer in-charge of the police station, Ratangarh, closed the cases with the order that the final reports are accepted and returned to the police station, Ratangarh. 5. Chief Judl. Magistrate while accepting the final reports, as given by the Officer in-charge of the police station, Ratangarh, closed the cases with the order that the final reports are accepted and returned to the police station, Ratangarh. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.4.98 passed, on both the final reports by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, the first informant instituted both these petitions in this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a request that the aforesaid orders resulting on the basis of false and concocted reports of refusal by Bahadur Singh, F.C., are liable to be quashed on the ground that neither Bahadur Singh ever appeared before him nor did he offer any notice for service and, hence he had no notice of filing final reports in both the cases on investigation in his report by the police station at Ratangarh and as a result, since both these orders originated at his back and without his knowledge of filing, pendency and disposal of final reports and, therefore, since he has been prejudiced by the impugned orders resulting in miscarriage of justice, the same are liable to be quashed. 6. However, while the petitions were pending before this Court, the Officer in-charge of police station, Ratangarh, filed two separate criminal complaints under section 182 I.P.C. against the first informant before the same court on the allegation that both the F.I.Rs. (Numbers 276/97 and 280/97) were falsely lodged before the Officer in-charge of the police station with ulterior motive whereas no such offences were ever committed by the persons named in the first information reports. The learned Magistrate, on 10.7.98, on both the complaints so filed, passed similar but separate orders whereby he proceeded to take cognizance of an offence under section 182 I.P.C. in each case and ordered for summoning of the first informant by issuance of summons in both cases for his appearance on 11.8.98. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.98. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 985/98 and 986/98 have been filed by the present petitioner Ram Ratan Challenging the same on the grounds which are common in the petitions filed against the order dated 21.4.98. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned P.P. and the original record of the lower court regarding final reports has also been summoned and perused. 8. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned P.P. and the original record of the lower court regarding final reports has also been summoned and perused. 8. At the outset, it may also be observed that during the arguments in this Court, the petitioner has filed sworn affidavits of Hira Lal Mahla and Nemi Chand Sharma in both the petitions, who have sworn in their affidavits duly attested by the Notary, Fatehpur that the Constable Bahadur Singh never offered any notice, as above to the petitioner Ram Ratan in their presence and that-there was no refusal of their acceptance by Ram Ratan in their presence. However, while admitting their signatures on the notices produced before them by Bahadur Singh F.C., they have denied the factum of tendering of notices as well as. refusal by the petitioner Ram Ratan. 9. The learned P.P. also could not successfully repel the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the sworn affidavits filed alongwith the connected stay petitions that there are no grounds to disbelieve the version of Ram Ratan petitioner who was, as borne out from the aforesaid facts, vigilant enough to lodge first information reports against the alleged accused persons and he has also come forward before this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the allegation that he was neither offered notices by Bahadur Singh either before filing of the final reports in the Court on 21.4.98 or subsequent thereto as required by the Court on 29.4.98 to show cause, if any, against acceptance of the final reports given by the police and that, as also sworn in their affidavits by Nemi Chand and Hira Lal, the reports of refusal to accept such notices dated 21.4.98 have been filed at the back of the petitioner. 10. In view of these circumstances, as also borne out from the record, though Bahadur Singh returned both the notices with the reports that Ram Ratan refused to accept the notices so tendered to him in presence of Hira Lal and Nemi Chand but, at the same time, both the witnesses Hira Lal and Nemi Chand have belied on the version and report of Bahadur Singh. There are no grounds to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses. There are no grounds to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses. Besides, since the first informant was vigilant enough throughout and he had the interest in the disputed land which is the main cause of the alleged incident as reported in both the first information reports and it also does not appear probable that inspite of knowledge of the final reports by the Officer in-charge of police station, Ratangarh, he would have absented on 29.4.98 as his absence has resulted in greater hardship to the petitioner himself and none else. 11. Besides,as evidenced from the reports of the serving Constable, since service of notices could not be affected in the manner provided under Sections 62, 63 and 64 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the last resort as provided under section 65 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that if service cannot by the exercise of due diligence be affected as provided in S. 62, S. 63 or S. 64, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides, and thereupon the Court, after making such inquiries as it thinks fit, may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service in such manner as it considers proper. The impugned orders dated 29.4.98 and so also the reports of the serving officer Bahadur Singh do not show that there was substantial compliance of the aforesaid provisions of S. 65 Cr.P.C. and on this ground also, the alleged service of notice on the petitioner Ram Ratan could not have been held to be affected duly and legally. Besides, in view of the affidavits sworn by the petitioner Ram Ratan as well as Hira Lal and Nemi Chand, their being nothing against them, and the aforesaid circumstances also made version of the petitioner more probable and reliable that he was never tendered nor did he ever refuse to accept the notice so issued and, therefore, there was no question of affecting any service as per the said provisions in regard to filing of final reports in both the cases. 12. 12. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that there was no service of notice against filing and acceptance of final report to the petitioner in both the cases which could have made possible to pass any appropriate order on 29.4.98 by the learned Magistrate. 13. The Hon'ble apex Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another AIR 1985 SC 1285 has clearly laid down that as and when a final report under section 173(2) (ii) Cr.P.C. is filed by any officer in-charge of police station before the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of alleged offences, in case the learned Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the first informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to. persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. It was further held that in case the Magistrate to whom such a report is forwarded under the aforesaid section decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. 14. In view of the legal mandate so given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to have seen that there was due service of notices so issued to the first informant to have appeared and objected against acceptance of the final report so given by the Officer in-charge of police station, Ratangarh but there was none. 15. Accordingly, there is no escape from the conclusion that in absence of such a prior notice against acceptance of final report, the impugned orders dated 29.4.98 could not have been passed and the same are vitiated and, consequently, both the impugned orders dated 29.4.98 whereby the "final reports so filed were accepted are liable to be quashed. 16. Consequently, both the final reports filed after investigation of F.I.Rs. No. 276/97 and 280/97 are hereby quashed. 17. 16. Consequently, both the final reports filed after investigation of F.I.Rs. No. 276/97 and 280/97 are hereby quashed. 17. Consequently, when both the aforesaid orders in regard to acceptance of final reports so filed have been quashed, resultantly, there is no escape from the consequential result that the impugned orders dated 10.7.98 and 29.4.98 by which cognizance of an offence under section 182 I.RC., on the basis of criminal complaint filed by the Officer in-charge of police station, Ratangarh was taken, are liable to the quashed and set-aside. In case the same are allowed to stand, the same shall frustrate the very purpose of the aforesaid petitions resulting in quashing of the orders dated 29.4.98. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the aforesaid petitions No. 426/98, 427/98, 985/98 and 986/98 are hereby accepted and impugned orders dated 29.4.98 and 10.7.98 are hereby set-aside. The petitioner who is represented through his counsel in these petitions, is hereby now notified and ordered that he shall make himself present before the court of Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Ratangarh in connection with final report arising out of F.I.R. Nos. 276/97 and 280/97 on 15.2.99. No further notice shall be required to be served on the petitioner. The record relating to both the final reports summoned by this Court shall, alongwith copy of this order, be sent to the trial court at the earliest. 19. All these petitions alongwith the stay petitions are disposed of accordingly.Petitions Accepted-Impugned Orders Set-Aside. *******