JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.7.2003 whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. and the order has been maintained by the revisional Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an incident was reported to the police by complainant Smt. Meera Bai, W/o injured Gird on 11.3.2003, wherein it was stated that due to negligence of the present petitioner, accident took place and her husband sustained injuries. On this information, an F.I.R. was registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed negative report on which cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned orders. 4. The contention of the present petitioner is that when FR has been filed by the police, then it was the bounden duty of the Court to consider the reasons given by the police to file a final report but the learned trial Court has not considered the reasons, which were given in support of the final report and he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2006 (2) RDD 979 (Raj.) , wherein it has been held as under : "In the present case, despite the existence of a negative Final Report, the learned Judicial Magistrate has merely mentioned that the police has submitted a negative Final Report on the basis of which the complainant has filed the protest petition. Judicial Magistrate has neither bothered to tell us what are the findings of the police after a thorough investigation, nor bothered to tell us why he disagrees with the findings of the Investigating Agency. He has merely discussed the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. without stating any reason for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order, which suffers from the virus of non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside." 5. He has merely discussed the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. without stating any reason for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order, which suffers from the virus of non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside." 5. Looking at the above legal position and while going through the impugned ordered, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has not considered the reasons on which the final report was submitted and on this very count, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the matter is of the year 2003 and there are many other infirmities and hence whole proceedings should be quashed as it is not in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration. Learned counsel has further stated that in parcha bayan of the injuries, it has been stated that the accident has been occurred due to slip of motor cycle and there is no allegation about rash and negligent driving by the present petitioner and no other person has said to be eye-witness in the parcha bayan. After a delay of 40 days, the report has been lodged by the wife of the injured alleging against the present petitioner. In the first information report, it has been specifically stated that no parcha bayan of the injured has been recorded and hence material fact has wrongly been stated in the F.I.R., which shows mala fides of the complainant. He has also submitted that for the sake of argument, if allegations in the F.I.R., are taken on their face value, they do not constitute any offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 I.P.C. as driving on a fast speed itself cannot be termed as rash and negligent driving. 7. Looking at the above fact that in the initial statement of injured recorded on the next date of incident nothing has been alleged against the present petitioner or about the commission of any offence and that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 40 days, which per se appears to be concocted one and hence continuation of proceedings is abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. 8. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance is set aside and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 424/2003 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli are also hereby quashed.Petition Allowed. *******