Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2458 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. Khem Raj

2005-09-15

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2005
Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.06.2000 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur whereby cognizance under Sections 420, 408 and 381 IPC has been taken against the non-petitioner No. 1, Khem Raj and non-petitioner No. 2, Nemichand. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that no cognizance has been taken for offence under Section 448 IPC against the non-petitioners by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this miscellaneous petition before us. 2. The petitioner is a power of attorney holder and Manager of complainant firm M/s. Chemical Industrial Distributors, Jodhpur. The said firm had rented out the first floor comprising of three rooms, one kitchen, toilet bathroom and varandah in house No. H-14 situated in Jodhpur. The said premises were used by the firm for providing residential accommodation to the employees who were posted from time to time at Jodhpur. At the relevant time, the said premises were given to non-petitioner No. 1 Khem Raj, who was working for the said firm. On 22.01.1998, Khem Raj informed his employers that when he reached Jodhpur from Pali, he discovered that the locks of the said premises were broken. He, therefore, requested the employers to rush immediately to Jodhpur. Upon reaching Jodhpur, the petitioner Babu Lal, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur for offence under Section 448 IPC. On 23.01.1998, the premises were inspected by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner also submitted a list of articles and goods, which were stolen from the said premises. In the presence of the I.O., the petitioner placed the locks of the firm and handed over the keys to the non-petitioner No. 1 Khem Raj and went back to Pali. However, just two days later on 24.01.1998 when the petitioner came back to Jodhpur, he discovered to his shock and dismay that Khem Raj was absent and there was a different lock on the premises. When he contacted the Police Station, the Sub Inspector and the Circle Officer informed that Khem Raj had handed over the possession of premises to non-petitioner No. 2 Nemichand. They also showed him the written document. The petitioner immediately requested the police to register a FIR against the non-petitioner No. 1 and No. 2. However, the police refused to register any case. The petitioner also contacted the Superintendent of police. Even then, no action was taken by the police. They also showed him the written document. The petitioner immediately requested the police to register a FIR against the non-petitioner No. 1 and No. 2. However, the police refused to register any case. The petitioner also contacted the Superintendent of police. Even then, no action was taken by the police. Therefore, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate. Meanwhile, the police submitted a negative final report in the earlier FIR registered on 22.01.1998. The order dated 30.06.2000 is a common order dealing with both, the negative final report and the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner. While, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 as stated above, but he has also accepted the negative final report filed by the police. 3. Mr. Sajjan Singh, the Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, according to him, the statement of Babu Lal and Satya Narain, PW. 2 prima facie made out an offence under Section 448 IPC. But, despite the evidence being available on record, the learned Magistrate has not taken any cognizance for offence under Section 448 IPC. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has accepted the negative final report submitted by the police without stating any reason for such acceptance. Since, a protest petition had been filed against the negative final report, according to Mr. Sajjan Singh, the learned Magistrate should have given reasons for accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition. Therefore, as far as the acceptance of final report is concerned , the impugned order is a non-speaking one. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has contended that taking of cognizance is completely discretionary matter with the learned Magistrate. According to him, the ingredients of Section 448 IPC do not exist in the present case. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified is not taking any cognizance for the said offence. Moreover, according to him, the learned Magistrate was not required to state any reason for accepting the final report and for dismissing the protest petition. 5. We have heard both the Counsels and have analysed the evidence on record. 6. According to the petitioner, the said premises were rented out as early as 1972 and continued to be in their possession ever since then. 5. We have heard both the Counsels and have analysed the evidence on record. 6. According to the petitioner, the said premises were rented out as early as 1972 and continued to be in their possession ever since then. According to the non-petitioner No. 2 Nemi Chand, he had sent a registered notice through his Advocate informing the firm that their tenancy would be terminated w.e.f. 31.01.1998. Thus, admittedly till 31.01.1998, the firm was a tenant of Nemichand and the said premises were under its possession. Khem Raj was an employee of the said firm, who had been working for the firm since 1993 or so. The premies were entrusted to Khem Raj. However, Khem Raj and Nemichand entered into an understanding to cheat the firm. Without any authorisation from the firm, Khem Raj handed over the possession of the said premises to Nemichand. Thereafter, Nemichand entered into the said premises, although, on 24.01.1998 he did not have the right to take over the possession of the said premises. 7. Section 445 IPC deals with different ways by which a house can be broken into by an offender. In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence to show that Nemichand had entered and taken over the possession of the house, in connivance with Khem Raj. Thus, prima facie a case of house breaking is made out against the non-petitioner No. 1 and 2. Since, a prima facie case does exists, hence the learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the said offence. 8. Since, the learned magistrate had taken cognizance against the non-petitioner No. 1 and 2 for other offences, it is rather surprising that he has accepted the negative final report submitted by the police. When a negative final report is submitted by the police and a protest petition is filed by the complainant, the learned Magistrate is expected to give reasons for acceptance of the negative final report or for dismissing the protest petition. Afterall, the order passed by the learned Magistrate can be challenged before the Appellate Courts. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in passing a mechanical order without applying his judicious mind. A reasoned decision is not only requirement of principles of Natural Justice, but is also a requirement of criminal law. Afterall, the order passed by the learned Magistrate can be challenged before the Appellate Courts. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in passing a mechanical order without applying his judicious mind. A reasoned decision is not only requirement of principles of Natural Justice, but is also a requirement of criminal law. In the absence of any reason, the Appellate Court does not have the benefit of knowing the factors on which the decision is based. Therefore, the part of the order by which the learned Magistrate has accepted the negative final report, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to re-consider the negative final report and protest petition and to give reasons, in case he deems just and proper to accept the final report. So far as other part of the order not taking cognizance for offence under Section 448 IPC is concerned, we deem it proper to remand the case to the Judicial Magistrate for holding further inquiry in accordance with law. 9. With these directions, the petition is disposed.