Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1727 (RAJ)

Ram Charan v. State of Rajasthan

2001-10-30

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - Accused petitioners namely, Ram Charan S/o Chatur, Jugal S/o Ram Charan, Mahesh, Mukesh and Dinesh have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 9.5.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, whereby, he dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 24/1998 arising out against the orders dated 29.4.1998 and 16.6.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. 169/1998 and affirmed the order taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 451 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that on 1.8.1997 complainant non-petitioner No. 2 Rajendra lodged a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. to Police Station. Karauli for investigation, where F.I.R. No. 381/1997 was registered. 3. After investigation, police submitted final report No. 175 on 31st August, 1997. The complainant submitted the protest petition against the final report, but that too was dismissed in the absence of the complainant and final report was accepted on 10.2.1998. The complainant on the same day submitted the second complaint on the same allegations in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.2.1998, recorded the statements of complainant and his witnesses namely, Jugal Kishore, Lokendra, Kirori Lal and Brij Mohan. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.4.1998 took cognizance against accused petitioners. Accused petitioners filed a review petition against the order of cognizance on 15.6.1998, which was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 16.6.1998. Accused petitioners preferred a revision against the order of cognizance in the Court of Sessions on 26.6.1998. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 14.9.1998 holding it to be not maintainable. Accused petitioners submitted a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. In this Court and this Court vide its order dated 22.2.2000 setaside the order dated 14.9.1998 and directed the learned Sessions Judge to decide the revision petition on merits. The learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 9.5.2000 again dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners and hence the accused petitioners have submitted the present petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. in this Court. 4. The learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 9.5.2000 again dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners and hence the accused petitioners have submitted the present petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. in this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners has contended that once the learned Magistrate had accepted the final report, which was the judicial order, he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance against the petitioners on the basis of the second criminal complaint filed by complainant Rajendra. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have contended that there is no error of law in taking cognizance, after final report has been accepted by the learned Magistrate. They have also contended that this Court should not act as a second revisional Court in the garb of exercising inherent powers. 6. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the above legal submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. 7. On facts, there is no dispute that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioners on a second complaint filed by the complainant, after the first protest petition was dismissed in the absence of the complainant and acceptance of the final report submitted by the police. It is also not disputed that the accused petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance in revision before the learned Sessions Judge and that revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. In Chandan Mal Jain and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1998 Cr LR (Raj) 474 , it has been held that Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance on a complaint merely on the ground that he had earlier declined to take cognizance on a police report. The acceptance of F.R. is no bar for taking cognizance about the same incident by the Magistrate under Section 190 (1) Cr. P.C. if on the criminal complaint and after holding inquiry under. Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. he finds Prima-facie that some offence is made out. 9. In the case of Yasin and others v. Sajjad Hussain and another, 1996 ACC 9 (HC) (Sum.) : 1996 Cr. LJ 747 , Dr. M.P. Srivastava and another v. Sqn. Ldr. K.V. Vashist, 1991 Cr LJ 12 ; Jan Mohd. v. The State of Rajasthan and another with Abdul Rehman v. Jan Mohd. 9. In the case of Yasin and others v. Sajjad Hussain and another, 1996 ACC 9 (HC) (Sum.) : 1996 Cr. LJ 747 , Dr. M.P. Srivastava and another v. Sqn. Ldr. K.V. Vashist, 1991 Cr LJ 12 ; Jan Mohd. v. The State of Rajasthan and another with Abdul Rehman v. Jan Mohd. and others and in the case of Jatinder Singh and others v. Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784 a similar view has also been taken. In the case of Jatinder Singh and others v. Ranjit Kaur (supra): it has been held that there is no provisions in the code or in any other statute which debars a complainant from preferring a second complaint on the same allegations, if the first complaint did not result in a conviction or acquittal or even discharge Section 300 of the Code, which debars a second trial, has taken care to explain that "the dismissal of a complaint or the dis- charge of an accused is not an acquittal for the purpose of this section". 10. In view of the above settled legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of second complaint after acceptance of final report. 11. This Court in the case of Munni Lal v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 30 1996 (1) (Raj) 281 , the following the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Maninder Kaur v. Rajendra Singh and others, (1992) (Supp) (2) SC 25 , Dharam Pal and others v. Rameshwar, AIR 1993 SC 1361 and in the case of Ganesh Narain Hedge v. S. Bangarappa and others, JT 1995 (4) SC 124 held that once the party has already availed the remedy of revision under Section 397 (3) Cr. P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, he cannot avail subsequent remedy of revision again before this Court by' having resort to inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. In the present case also the petitioners once availed of the remedy of revision before the Court of Sessions, the petitioners cannot be permitted to again avail the remedy of revision before this court by resorting to the provisions of section 482, Cr. P.C. The High Court should not act as a second revisional Court in the garb of exercising inherent powers. P.C. The High Court should not act as a second revisional Court in the garb of exercising inherent powers. In my opinion allowing the petitioners to proceed with the complaint would not amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 13. Even on merits, I have carefully perused the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and I find that reasonable grounds existed to believe that petitioners have committed offences for which cognizance has been taken. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality in taking so cognizance against the petitioners. 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner filed by the petitioners stands dismissed. *******