Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2100 (RAJ)

Jagsir v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-26

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition is directed against the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria in revision whereby the learned Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria directing further investigation in the case. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed a complaint in the Court of A.C.J.M. Sangaria on 13.7.2010. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police thoroughly investigated the matter and filed a negative Final Report in the Court of the A.C.J.M. Sangaria. The A.C.J.M. issued notice of the Final Report to the complainant who appeared and filed a protest petition. The Court proceeded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the statement of the complainant Gurubachan Singh was recorded by the Trial Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel submits that the moment, learned Trial Court proceeded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken and thereafter the learned Magistrate ceased to have jurisdiction to direct further investigation of the case. The learned Counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh Rana v. State being the Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1997 SC 639 and on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Reeta Nag v. State of W.B., reported in AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 401 . Learned Counsel thus prays that the order impugned whereby the learned Magistrate directed further investigation of the case to be conducted by the Supdt. of Police, Hanumangarh is absolutely illegal and beyond the scope of its powers. He thus prays that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and the orders impugned should be quashed. 3. Per contra Mr. S.K. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the complainant respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance in this case. He submits that merely because statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200, it cannot be presumed that cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. He submits that till the stage, an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not passed, it cannot be held that cognizance was taken in the case. He submits that merely because statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200, it cannot be presumed that cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. He submits that till the stage, an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not passed, it cannot be held that cognizance was taken in the case. Thus, he urges that the learned Trial Court was justified in directing further investigation by the Police in the case. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the order impugned. 5. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 complainant that cognizance was not taken is frivolous and deserves rejection at the outset. As soon as the learned Magistrate adopted the procedure under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and indicated its intention to examine the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken by him. The order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is passed for summoning an accused. It cannot be equated with an order taking cognizance. In this view of the matter and keeping in view the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Randhir Singh Rana (supra) and Reeta Nag (supra), once cognizance of the offence was taken, learned Magistrate could not have directed further investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, if any enquiry by Police was warranted, only option open to the Magistrate was to direct an enquiry to be conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in its own wisdom. The application filed by the complainant for directing further investigation was not maintainable once cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. 6. In this view of the matter, the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The order dated 18.6.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria in Final Report No. 75/2010 as affirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria in revision by its order dated 8.2.2013 are both quashed. The learned Trial Court is however at liberty to consider the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. in its own wisdom and if circumstances so warrant.Petition allowed. *******