Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 423 (RAJ)

Narayani Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2000-04-05

BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while .taking cognizance, learned Magistrate has not considered the entire record. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that police investigation report which is termed as final report, has not been considered by the learned Magistrate while making the order of taking cognizance. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent urges that order of the learned Magistrate is clear. The learned Magistrate in his order clearly mentioned that before proceeding for enquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code the police has filed final report. Further, it has been mentioned that after earlier orders having been passed by the Magistrate, the Superior Court considered the case and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. This shows that learned Magistrate was conscious of the proceedings in the case and he is taking serious note of every steps of the case. Learned Magistrate recorded in his order that he has carefully considered the record of the case. 3. The assertion of the learned counsel for the respondent is that observation of the learned Magistrate that he has looked into the record carefully is not an empty formality because referring to the FIR, learned Magistrate has stated that accused no. 3 Seep s/o Mahaveer who is referred in the FIR has been left out by learned Magistrate from taking cognizance. This is conscious application of mind on the material placed on record. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to discuss the evidence produced on record and has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material available on record to form an opinion under Section 204 Cr.RC. to issue process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners his placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1988(2) WLN 310 (Jagdish v. State) wherein it has been held that consideration of the entire material on record is necessary before any process is issued and the entire material includes the result of the investigation. He has also placed reliance on Supreme Court decision reported in 1960 SC Page 1113 (Vidilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar) whereby he canvasses that before a petition is dismissed, learned trial court is required to consider the case in terms of Section 203 Cr.RC. and the entire record is required to be considered. He has also placed reliance on Supreme Court decision reported in 1960 SC Page 1113 (Vidilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar) whereby he canvasses that before a petition is dismissed, learned trial court is required to consider the case in terms of Section 203 Cr.RC. and the entire record is required to be considered. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1989 RCC 467 (Dr. Dalpat Singh v. State) and 1993 RCC 611 (Abdul Rehman v. State) wherein this court has held that as and when the police report is not considered before taking cognizance, the order taking cognizance is bad in the eye of law. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, reading of the order of the trial court does not show that learned Magistrate was not conscious of the filing of report submitted by the police on record. The learned Magistrate was conscious and has taken note of fact that matter came before him after remand. It appears that the trial court has considered the contents of the FIR and other material including F.R. Sufficient indication is available in the order that learned Magistrate has considered the final report. In this view of the matter, argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner looses its significance that F.R. has not been considered. Here it may be mentioned that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment reported in 2000(1) SCC 138 (Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau) while dealing the question of framing charge has expressed in the following terms- "15. It is well settled that at the stage of framing charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. If on the basis of materials on record the court could come to the conclusion that accused would have committed the offence the court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial." "16. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. If on the basis of materials on record the court could come to the conclusion that accused would have committed the offence the court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial." "16. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. It was held therein : (SCC p. 771, para 15) "When the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself." 17. The present is certainly not a case where the aforesaid ratio can justifiably by applied. A three Judge Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa has held thus : (SCC p. 671 para 32) . "If on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage." 7. From the guidance available from the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, requirements of Section 204 Cr.RC. are clearly made out. Section 204 Cr.RC. only makes out that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that cognizance can be taken, then he can proceed against the accused. Framing of the opinion does not require deep and extensive narration of facts obtaining on record nor it is required that the learned Magistrate is to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. only makes out that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that cognizance can be taken, then he can proceed against the accused. Framing of the opinion does not require deep and extensive narration of facts obtaining on record nor it is required that the learned Magistrate is to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record. If the Magistrate has made reference to the material on record and has stated that he looked into the record, then it should be presumed that he has referred and read the entire material. In this view of the matter, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. No interference is called for. The revision petition giving no force is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******