Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1137 (RAJ)

Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-25

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2011
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—The petitioners have impugned he order dated 23.3.2002, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra took cognizance of the offences under Section 420 and 323 of IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, against the accused persons namely Ramswaroop, Daulatram, Kastooribai and Naurangibai. 2. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioners filed; revision petition and the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, having heard both the parties dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhabra. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders. 4. The main thrust of argument, put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned trial Court instead of taking cognizance of the offences, ought to have sent the case back for re-investigation to police, as the documents produced by the complainant were not taken care of, while preparing the report by police, hence, the order of taking cognizance and proceeding against the petitioners cannot be said to be just in the eye of law. 5. E converso, learned counsel for the complainant has defended the impugned orders passed by the Court below and stated the same to be just and proper, which warrant no intervention. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant provisions of law, it is pertinent to note that upon submission of negative police report, which is popularly known as final report, it is not necessarily required for the Magistrate to first send the final report for further investigation or re-investigation. The Magistrate upon a protest petition, after examining the complainant and his witnesses, can take the cognizance of offence or offences, if the facts or evidence emerging on record do constitute the commission of the said offence or offences. After submission of final report, sending the case for re-investigation is not a condition precedent for a Magistrate to take the cognizance of offence. It is exclusively the discretion of the Court to decide, as to whether case needs to be sent again for re-investigation or further investigation to the police or the Magistrate decides to examine the complainant and his witnesses for passing an order in accordance with the provisions of law. It is exclusively the discretion of the Court to decide, as to whether case needs to be sent again for re-investigation or further investigation to the police or the Magistrate decides to examine the complainant and his witnesses for passing an order in accordance with the provisions of law. In the instant case the learned trial Court deemed just and proper to pass an order after having gone through the evidence collected by the police and thus, took the cognizance of the offences under Section 420 and 323 of IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act, after recording the statements of the complainant as also other witnesses present in the Court. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court also dismissed the revision petition in its revisional jurisdiction. 7. There has been a concurrent finding of the two courts below and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. There does not appear to be any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and thus, criminal misc. petition being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being devoid of any substance stands dismissed.