Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 35 (ALL)

Narendra Singh v. State of U. P. and Ram

2005-01-07

AMAR SARAN

body2005
AMAR SARAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned aga. ( 2 ) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 19. 7. 2001 passed by ACJM, Etawah, in Case No. 35 of 2000, in case Crime No. 6a/99 of PS bachay Gaon, District Etawah, whereby he has rejected the final report and taken cognizance against the applicants in the aforesaid crime under Sections 147, 148, 302, 506 IPC. ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint against the applicants has been filed by way of a counterblast to the earlier report of the applicants against the complainant under Sections 302/504 IPC, which was registered as case Crime No. 6 of 1999 at the aforesaid police station. ( 4 ) IT has been laid down by the apex court in the case of Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and ors. [jt 2001 (10) SC 361] that if there are two rival versions of the same incident, there is no fetter on the investigation on both the FIRs for ascertaining the true facts of the matter nor is there any bar on the courts taking cognizance in respect of the two matters. Recently, in the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Ors. [jt 2004 (7) 488] the decision in T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. [jt 2001 (3) SC 440] was doubted and it was clarified that there was every power for investigation of two cross-cases and simply because a side may seek to pre-empt the investigation of a cross-case against him by first lodging an FIR against the other party, that can only be prevented if the investigation of the two cross-cases are permitted. ( 5 ) IT was next contended that detailed reasons ought to have been given by the learned magistrate while rejecting the final report, especially as it was on the third occasion that a final report had been submitted in this case. ( 5 ) IT was next contended that detailed reasons ought to have been given by the learned magistrate while rejecting the final report, especially as it was on the third occasion that a final report had been submitted in this case. In this regard, I think that the reasons have been given and there is sufficient compliance of the decision in the case of H. S. Bains v. The State (Union Territory of chandigarh): AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1883, as it is not stated anywhere in the ruling that detailed reasons are to he given. In fact, in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid law report it is mentioned that the magistrate should eschew giving elaborate reasons for taking cognizance or refusing to take it. The relevant excerpt from paragraph 9 reads as follows: "we do not propose to say a word about the merits of the case since it was entirely a matter for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance or not to take cognizance of the several offences. We however wish to observe that if was wholly unnecessary for the Magistrate to write such an elaborate order as if he was weighing the evidence and finally disposing of the case. . . " ( 6 ) IN this case, it is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the court concerned has perused the FIR and all the other evidence on record in respect of the case, that would mean statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and has held that as the protest petition was in accordance with the FIR, hence the final report needed to be rejected. The same position has been reiterated in the case of Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports v. Roshan Lal Agarwal and Ors. [2003 (46) ACC 686 (Supreme Court), wherein it has mentioned that the magistrate is not required to give any detailed reasons for summoning of an accused. Further, the apex court in adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal and Ors. [2004 (3) Crimes 350 (SC)], has held that the accused has no right of hearing at the stage of cognizance. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid, there is no force in this application and it is dismissed. Further, the apex court in adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal and Ors. [2004 (3) Crimes 350 (SC)], has held that the accused has no right of hearing at the stage of cognizance. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid, there is no force in this application and it is dismissed. ( 8 ) AS the matter has remained pending for a long time, in view of the fact that applicants had obtained stay in the matter, the court concerned is directed to commit the case within one month, if possible, and the trial court is thereafter directed to connect both the cross-cases, mentioned above, and to conclude the trial of the same within 6 months, if possible. ( 9 ) A copy of this order may be sent by the Registry to the concerned courts within 10 days from today.