JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Applicants, Sri Bhagwan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2/Complainant/informant and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Applicants are Doctor Couple. Applicant no.1 is a Surgeon, whereas applicant no.2 is a Gynecologist. They are practising at their hospital namely Singh Life Care Hospital Ltd, Rajepur, Disrict-Ghazipur. 3. Complainant (Anandi Singh Yadav) lodged an First Information Report on 19.4.2015 at 10.30 hours, under Sections 147, 302, 323, 395 and 504 I.P.C. alleging that an occurrence took place in the night of 18/19.4.2015 at said hospital wherein applicants along with unknown persons have allegedly caused death of his son. Contents of complaint mentioned in FIR is reproduced hereinafter:- 4. Post mortem of deceased was conduced on 19.4.2015 at about 4.30 P.M. whereupon 24 Ante Mortem injuries were found and it was opined that cause of death was ‘Coma and Haemorrhagic shock as a result of Ante-Mortem Injuries’. For reference Ante-Mortem Injuries’ are mentioned hereinafter: “Antemortem Injuries:- 1. LACERATED WOUND 4 CM X 1 CM X BONE DEEP OVER RIGHT SIDE OF HEAD, 4 CM ABOVE RIGHT EAR OPENING, AFTER DISSECTION RIGHT FRONTAL & PARIETAL BONE ARE FRACTURED. 2. LACERATED WOUND 9 CM X 5 CM X BONE DEEP AROUND RIGHT EAR WITH AVULSION OF RIGHT EAR PINNA. 3. ABRADED CONTUSION 16 CM X 5 CM OVER RIGHT SIDE OF FACE, EXTANDING FROM FORE-HEAD TO FRONT OF RIGHT EAR. 4. ABRASION 5 CM X 3 CM OVER NECK, JUST BELOW ENJURY NO.-2. 5. LACERATED WOUND 5 CM X 6 CM X BONE DEEP AROUND LEFT EAR WITH AVULSION OF LEFT EAR PINNA. 6. ABRADED CONTUSION 7.5CM X 3 CM OVER JUST MEDIAL TO INJURY NO-5. 7. ABRADED CONTUSION 2 CM X 1 CM OVER RIGHT SIDE OF CHIN. 8. ABRADED CONTUSION 2.5 CM X 1 CM OVER LEFT SIDE OF CHIN. 9. ABRADED CONTUSION 9 CM X 4.6 CM OVER FRONT OF RIGHT SHOULDER AND ABRASION 2.4CM X 1 CM OVER BACK OF RIGHT SHOULDER. 10. ABRADED CONTUSION 3 CM X 1.5 CM AT UPPER END OF XIPHISTERNUM. 11. ABRADED CONTUSION 6 CM X 2.3 CM OVER TOP OF LEFT SHOULDER. 12. MULTIPLE ABRASIONS MARKS IN AREA OF 8 CM X 6 CM OVER DORSAL ASPECT OF LEFT PALM. 13. ABRASION 6 CM X 4.5 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF LUMBER REGION. 10. ABRADED CONTUSION 3 CM X 1.5 CM AT UPPER END OF XIPHISTERNUM. 11. ABRADED CONTUSION 6 CM X 2.3 CM OVER TOP OF LEFT SHOULDER. 12. MULTIPLE ABRASIONS MARKS IN AREA OF 8 CM X 6 CM OVER DORSAL ASPECT OF LEFT PALM. 13. ABRASION 6 CM X 4.5 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF LUMBER REGION. 11 CM BELOW LEFT LOWER END OF SCAPULA. 14. ABRASION 5 CM X 4.2 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF RIGHT ELBOW JOINT. 15. ABRASION 19.5 CM X 9.3 CM OVER RIGHT SCAPULAR REGION. 16. ABRASION 8 CM X 4 CM OVER RIGHT SIDE OF BACK, 3 CM BELOW & ANTERIOR TO INJURY NO.-15. 17. ABRASION 17 CM X 6.2 CM OVER RIGHT LOWER BACK, 8 CM ABOVE & POSTERIOR TO RIGHT ANTERIOR SUPERIOR ILIAC SPINE. 18. ABRADED CONTUSION 8 CM X 5 CM OVER DORSAL ASPECT OF RIGHT PALM INCLUDING RIGHT INDEX FINGER. 19. MULTIPLE ABRADED CONTUSION IN AREA OF 7 CM X 5 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF LEFT ELBOW JOINT INCLUDING UPPER END OF LEFT FORE-ARM. 20. ABRASION 4 CM X 3.4 CM OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF LEFT ELBOW JOINT. 21. ABRASION 2.6 CM X 1.5 CM JUST BELOW RIGHT PATELA. 22. LACERATED WOUND 1.5 CM X 1 CM X MUSCLE DEEP OVER LEFT LEG, 4 CM BELOW LEFT PATELA. 23. CRUSHED INJURY 23 CM X 6.5 CM OVER MEDIAL ASPECT OF LEFT FOOT, UNDERLYING BONE EXPOSED. 24. ABRASION 2 CM X 1 CM OVER DORSAL ASPECT OF RIGHT FOOT, 1 CM BELOW SECOND TOE.” 5. On basis of referred F.I.R., investigation was conducted. Investigating Officer recorded statement of the complainant (Anandi Singh Yadav) and alleged witnesses Basanti Devi (daughter of complainant) and Sandeep Yadav (nephew of complainant). Anandi Singh Yadav and Basanti Devi have recorded similar version as recorded in F.I.R. and claimed that they were eye witnesses to occurrence. Sandeep Yadav has also claimed to be an eye witness, but his version was different to other alleged eye witness (Anandi Singh Yadav and Basanti Devi) that there was a struggle between deceased and attendants of a patient who was being attended by Doctor and Hospital’s staff at the hospital at relevant time. Staff of Hospital intervened and forced deceased to go outside the gate of hospital, where he met with a road accident near the hospital and died. His dead body was found on stretcher at hospital. Staff of Hospital intervened and forced deceased to go outside the gate of hospital, where he met with a road accident near the hospital and died. His dead body was found on stretcher at hospital. Statement of Sandeep Yadav is reproduced hereinafter: 6. During investigation, the Investigation Officer has also recorded statements of staff of the hospital. Statement of Smt. Chinta Devi, a cleaner working at the hospital was recorded. Statement of Gandhi Singh was also recorded, who was at hospital for treatment of his relative. Similarly, statement of Arvind Yadav was also recorded who was also present at the hospital for treatment of his wife. Their statements are reproduced hereafter: 7. Investigating Officer also recorded statements of Doctors who have conducted postmortem of deceased and their statements are also reproduced hereinafter; 8. During investigation, a report of Sanyukt Nideshak Rajya Chikitsa Vidhi Visheshagya, Uttar Pradesh dated 24.4.2015 was also taken on record and same is reproduced hereinafter: 9. During investigation, some orders were passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur therefore, the Superintendent of Police,Ghazipur vide order dated 16.5.2015 constituted a ‘Special Investigation Team’ (SIT), comprising of four officers. Said order is reproduced hereinafter: 10. Subsequently, the Special Investigation Team took over the investigation and recorded mazid statement of above referred complainant and witnesses. During investigation, some questions were also asked from witnesses being loosely termed as cross-examination. Statements recorded by Special Investigation Team are as follows:- 11. The SIT also recorded statements of Smt. Chinta Devi (Cleaner at hospital), Ram Dular (attendant of a patient), Ram Kumar Yadav (Guard at Hospital) and Dr. Majharuddin working at the Hospital. Their statements are mentioned hereinafter:- 12. The SIT also recorded statements of Gandhi Singh (attendant of a patient), Mulayam Singh (a relative of deceased), Smt. Manju Devi, (a relative of deceased), Smt. Shakuntala (relative of a patient), Sri Pankaj Kumar (relative of a patient), Sri Arvind Singh (relative of a patient). Their statements are mentioned hereinafter: 13. On basis of their investigation, the Special Investigation Team prepared a Report dated 18.5.2015, that investigation in regard to a vehicle allegedly involved in occurrence was required. The Special Investigation Team further submitted a Report dated 19.5.2015 that a Lie Detector Test of Sandeep Singh and Gandhi Singh and Narco Test of Basanti Devi and Chinta Devi was required and accordingly permission was sought. The Special Investigation Team further submitted a Report dated 19.5.2015 that a Lie Detector Test of Sandeep Singh and Gandhi Singh and Narco Test of Basanti Devi and Chinta Devi was required and accordingly permission was sought. The report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur under Section 169 Cr.P.C. to release co-accused from jail, since no offence was made out against them. Relevant part of said report is mentioned hereinafter: 14. Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshsala, Uttar Pradesh Mahanagar, Lucknow submitted a report on 11.6.2015 in regard to Crime Scene Recreation, which is mentioned hereinafter: 15. In pursuance of application, permission was granted and two witnesses namely Gandhi Singh and Chinta Devi were voluntarily subjected to Lie Detection Test as well as Narco Test, wherein some relevant questions were asked and their answers were also given other two witnesses did not respond to test. Relevant part of both reports i.e. LIE DETECTION (POLYGRAPH TEST) REPORT are mentioned hereinafter: 16. Smt. Chinta Devi and Gandhi Singh have undergone NARCO Analysis Test. They were asked about 34 and 28 questions respectively. For reference, entire report are being mentioned hereinafter: 17. After above referred investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report on 16.5.2015 that it was not a case of culpable homicide, rather deceased died due to a road accident. Final Report in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter. 18. The Complainant has filed a Protest Petition to oppose the final report. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur considered final report as well as protest petition and vide order dated 26.6.2015 rejected the outcome of final report and summoned the applicants and four other accused under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 302 I.P.C. Impugned order in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter. CriminalP.C.(1974), Ss. 190(1(b)173(2)200, 202- Cognizance of offence Power of Magistrate-He can take cognizance of offence even if police report is to the effect that no case was made out-Need not follow procedure laid down in Ss. 200,202. 19. The applicants and other accused being aggrieved by aforesaid order, filed a Revision Petition. 20. Aforesaid Revision Petition was dismissed vide order dated 9.12.2019. Relevant part of same is reproduced hereinafter. 1. He may agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before so doing, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or 2. 20. Aforesaid Revision Petition was dismissed vide order dated 9.12.2019. Relevant part of same is reproduced hereinafter. 1. He may agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the police, accept the report and drop the proceedings. But before so doing, he shall give an opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or 2. He may take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) and issue process straight way to the accused without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where he is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is sufficient ground to proceed; or 3. He may, order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner; or 4. He may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take cognizance under Section 190(1) (a) upon the original complaint or protest petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and there after decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued. 21. Above referred orders are impugned in the present application. 22. During investigation, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed few orders pointing out certain illegalities, rejected prayer to release co-accused under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and has passed some directions also. Orders dated 2.5.2015, 8.5.2015, 21.5.2015, 22.5.2015 and 4.6.2015 being relevant are reproduced hereinafter: The orders are part of counter affidavit. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter VII Cr.P.C. in cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.” if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. if the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate).” 23. Submissions on behalf of applicants. (i) Sri. Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that a detailed and fair investigation was conducted. Initially by the police and subsequently by a Special Investigation Team. In order to verify statements given by alleged eye witnesses, their Lie Detection Test as well as Narco Test was also conducted. During investigation, a crime scene was also recreated. One of the alleged eye witnesses i.e. nephew of the complainant (Sandeep Yadav) has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and later on before Special Investigation Team that initially some dispute arose between deceased and attendants of other patients, which was intervened by staff of the hospital. Thereafter deceased was taken outside the hospital and left alone. Thereafter deceased died due to an accident. (ii) During investigation, staff of the hospital and attendants of different patients have also narrated same version and report of their Lie Detection Test as well as Narco Test also verified their stand in respect of initial commotion and later on of an accidental death. Involvement of applicants (Doctor Couple) was absolutely denied, that they came to place of occurrence after deceased died due to an accident. (iii) Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that after a fair and detailed investigation, a final report was submitted. Learned Magistrate has not arrived at a conclusion that on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, there was a prima facie evidence against the present applicants and other accused that they have committed an offence of murder of son of complainant. No reference was made in regard to evidence about role of Doctor Couple. Learned Magistrate has not arrived at a conclusion that on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, there was a prima facie evidence against the present applicants and other accused that they have committed an offence of murder of son of complainant. No reference was made in regard to evidence about role of Doctor Couple. Learned Trial Court has pointed out various lacunas in the investigation as well as in contents of questions asked during lie detection test as well in Narco Test whereas for making an opinion all questions and their respective replies were required to be considered and not a part of it. (iv) Learned counsel for the applicants also referred expert opinion in regard to ante-mortem injuries suffered by deceased as well as he also referred statement of the Doctors, who have conducted postmortem that it could be a case of an accidental death and not a case of homicide. (v) Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that in case learned Magistrate was not satisfied by manner of investigation, instead of taking cognizance and summoning the applicants, other options available that he ought to have either pass a direction for further investigation or to treat the protest petition as a complaint and proceed to conduct an inquiry himself as provided under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. (vi) Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that learned Trial Court has picked few questions and answers of scientific investigation to arrive at a conclusion that it was case of homicide and not of an accidental death. Correct approach ought to be to have considered all questions and their answers. Presence of an eye witness (Smt. Chinta Devi) was disputed only on basis of a reply to question that she was giving water in garden, on ground that it was late night, without appreciating that she was on night duty and garden was inside the hospital as well as other replies could not be ignored specifically in regard to role of applicants (Doctor Couples), that they came down from their residence after death on a phone call of a Doctor. (vii) The learned Court also submitted that judgments relied by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are distinguishable on facts and law that in present case a thorough investigation was conducted and a final report was submitted and in order to reject such nature of final report and to take cognizance could be done only after careful appreciation of entire material on record and with a reason as to why outcome of final report was liable to be rejected and on the basis of such material, there were sufficient grounds to proceed. 24. Submissions on behalf of A.G.A. and complainant. (i) Learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any error to exercise one of the options available in such circumstances. Reason has been assigned in the impugned order, which are legally justified to take cognizance and summon the applicants and other accused by rejecting conclusion of Final Report. (ii) Learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned order and referred orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that during investigation police has not conducted fair investigation despite orders passed. Investigation conducted by Special Investigation Team was only an eye wash. Questions were not asked properly during scientific tests. There was a repeated attempt to support accused persons. Deceased has suffered as many as 24 injuries and only on ground that injury no.23 was opined to be a crushed injury, it could not be said to be an accidental death, rather nature of other injuries are sufficient to opined that it was a case of homicide. All witnesses even staff of the hospital have stated that a struggle took place between deceased, staff members of the hospital and attendants of other patients. It was not clear that death was caused due to an accident otherwise, dead body of deceased could not be found on a stretcher inside the hospital. Learned counsel referred impugned order that there is no legal error. 25. Now Court proceeds to consider the above referred rival submissions on the basis of records available. 26. In above background, it would be apt to refer few paragraphs of judgments passed by Supreme Court in Rakesh & Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2014) 13 SCC 133 , Zunaid Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2023 SC 4550 and Selvi & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 . 26. In above background, it would be apt to refer few paragraphs of judgments passed by Supreme Court in Rakesh & Anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2014) 13 SCC 133 , Zunaid Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2023 SC 4550 and Selvi & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 . Rakesh (supra) “6. If we are to go back to trace the genesis of the views expressed by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma [ Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha, (1982) 3 SCC 510 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 110] , notice must be had of the decision of this Court in H.S. Bains v. State (UT of Chandigarh) [ (1980) 4 SCC 631 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 93 : 1980 Cri LJ 1308] wherein it was held that after receipt of the police report under Section 173, the Magistrate has three options: (H.S. Bains case [ (1980) 4 SCC 631 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 93 : 1980 Cri LJ 1308] , SCC p. 635, para 6) “6. … (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.” The second and third options available to the Magistrate as laid down in H.S. Bains [ (1980) 4 SCC 631 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 93 : 1980 Cri LJ 1308] have been referred to and relied upon in subsequent decisions of this Court to approve the action of the Magistrate in accepting the final report and at the same time in proceeding to treat either the police report or the initial complaint as the basis for further action/enquiry in the matter of the allegations levelled therein. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra [ (2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] . The following view may be specifically noted: (SCC pp. 773-74, para 9) “9. … The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. [See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [ (1989) 2 SCC 132 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 306] (SCC p. 140, para 16).]” 7. The view expressed by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma [Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha, (1982) 3 SCC 510 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 110] has been followed in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy [ (2003) 1 SCC 734 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 425] and also in a somewhat recent pronouncement in Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra [(2011) 15 SCC 513 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 633] . The clear exposition of law in para 12 of Mahesh Chand [ (2003) 1 SCC 734 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 425] which is extracted below would leave no manner of doubt that the answer to the question posed by the High Court is correct. “12. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that only because the Magistrate has accepted a final report, the same by itself would not stand in his way to take cognizance of the offence on a protest/complaint petition; but the question which is required to be posed and answered would be as to under what circumstances the said power can be exercised.” Zunaid (supra) “11. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. It may be noted that even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report. As held by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha , as followed in B. Chandrika v. Santhosh , a Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. No doubt a Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be.” Selvi (supra) “246. The respondents' position is that the compulsory administration of c the impugned techniques should be permitted at least for investigative purposes, and if the test results lead to the discovery of fresh evidence, then these fruits should be admissible. We have already explained in light of the conjunctive reading of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that if the fact of compulsion is proved, the test results will not be admissible as evidence. However, for the sake of argument, if we were to d agree with the respondents and allow investigators to compel individuals to undergo these tests, it would also affect some of the key components of the "right to fair trial". (Emphasis supplied) 27. However, for the sake of argument, if we were to d agree with the respondents and allow investigators to compel individuals to undergo these tests, it would also affect some of the key components of the "right to fair trial". (Emphasis supplied) 27. Consideration and Conclusion: (i) As referred above, after a final report is submitted by the Investigating Officer to a Magistrate, one of the alternatives available with the Magistrate is to take cognizance on the basis of final report and accompanied material submitted by the Investigating Officer, which was adopted in the present case. Consequently, there is no illegality in the process adopted. (ii) The issue left for consideration is whether on basis of material available with the Final Report, an opinion of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, if any, that there is sufficient ground for proceeding is justified or not? (iii) The Court will also consider, if such material was not sufficient to form an opinion to take cognizance and to summon, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have taken recourse of other alternatives i.e. either to pass a direction for further investigation or may treat the protest petition as a Complaint and proceed accordingly in terms of Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. (iv) On basis of above referred material on record, it is not much under dispute that a detailed investigation was conducted, initially by the police and subsequently by a Special Investigation Team. Scientific Tests i.e Lie Detection Test and Narcon Analysis Test were also conducted and a reasoned opinion was formed that it was not a case of homicide rather, deceased died due to a road accident. Deceased after initial commotion was left outside the hospital by the staff and attendants of patients, where after sometime he rushed to the road and met with an accident. (v) In case in hand, there is no dispute that a voluntary Lie Detector Test and Narco Analysis was conducted on two witnesses namely (Smt. Chinta Devi and Gandhi Singh), essentially for verifying truth of their respective statements recorded by Investigating Officer and later on by the Special Investigation Team that it was a case of accidental death and not a case of homicide. As held in Selvi (supra), such voluntary tests are permissible during investigation to unearth truth, however, as such it’s result would not be admissible in evidence, still it has corroborative value for purpose of filing a Final Report. (vi) Crux of the arguments of learned counsel for applicants was that material with the final report was not sufficient to reject its outcome and to take cognizance. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has not assigned substantial reasons to reject outcome of final report. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has pointed out various lacunas in the investigation, therefore, if he was not satisfied by the investigation, he ought to have adopted other remedies i.e. either to direct further investigation or to treat the protest petition as a complaint and by not adopting such alternatives remedies, impugned order becomes illegal. The evidence collected during detailed investigation has no other outcome, but to file a Final Report. Applicants have no role even in initial commotion and them came down after deceased has died. (vii) Crux of the arguments of learned counsel for complainant was that since commencement of the investigation, prosecution has not conducted a fair investigation despite various orders were passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Investigation was conducted only to make out a case of death by an accident and not to unearth truth, therefore, on basis of statements of witnesses (relatives of deceased) it was a case of homicide, wherein applicants were also involved. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly pointed out reasons that investigation was not proper as well as reasons for rejecting outcome of the Final Report. (viii) I have carefully perused impugned order passed by learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, wherein mainly it was observed that:- (a) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took note of observations made in his order passed during investigation that not only an application for amendment in offence from under Section 302 IPC to Section 304-A was rejected but subsequent application under Section 169 Cr.P.C (release of accused when evidence deficient) was also rejected with adverse observations in regard to nature of investigation and conduct of Investigating Officer. (b) Deceased has received 24 ante-mortem injuries (19 injuries were abrasion, 4 lacerated wounds and one crushed injury). (b) Deceased has received 24 ante-mortem injuries (19 injuries were abrasion, 4 lacerated wounds and one crushed injury). Out of 24 injuries there was only one crushed injury, which could not be possible in a case of accident, rather it indicates manner of occurrence as mentioned in FIR and and statement of complainant and witnesses i.e. relatives of deceased. (c) Complainant and other relatives of deceased were not gone through lie detection test and narco test on a ground that they remained unavailable for test whereas they have sought a next date that they were unwell. (d) Presence of Smt. Chinta Devi, (a staff of the hospital) at garden (for watering) at late hours was considered to be doubtful as well as she has stated in reply to question number 20 in Narco Analysis Test that deceased has not received any injury, which could not be possible in a case of accident. No mark of tyre was found on clothes. (e) Complainant and other relatives were consistent about manner of occurrence as narrated in FIR. (f) In support of impugned order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has placed reliance on M/s India Carat Pvt. LTD. VS. State Of Karnataka And Another, (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases; Sri A.C. Aggarwal, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Delhi And Another VS. Mst. Ram Kali ETC 1967 SCC Online SC 79; Bhushan Kumar And Another Vs. State [NCT Delhi] And Another (2012) 5 SCC 424 ; Gambhir Singh R. Dekare VS. Falgun Bhai Chimanbhai Patel And Another (2013) 3 SCC 697 . (ix) As referred above, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has concentrated more on manner of investigation that relevant questions were not asked during Lie Detector Test or Narco Analysis Test. Learned Magistrate has doubted presence of staff of the hospital at garden in late night as well as that only one crushed injury (out of 24 antemortem injuries) could not be sufficient to rule out murder and to make it a case of death by an accident. (x) The legal position to take cognizance and summoning after a final report, requires reasons either to accept it or reject and to took cognizance and summon or instead to direct for further investigation or treat it as a complainant case. (x) The legal position to take cognizance and summoning after a final report, requires reasons either to accept it or reject and to took cognizance and summon or instead to direct for further investigation or treat it as a complainant case. Since in present case, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while rejecting outcome of the Final Report has taken cognizance on basis of material available alongwith it that there are sufficient material to proceed, therefore, there must be reasons to support, though it may be in brief. (xi) The Court also takes note of orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate during investigation that application for amendment of charges from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 I.P.C. was rejected as well as application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was also rejected, however, since at that stage investigation was still not concluded therefore, there was no error in rejecting an application for amendment of offence and application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. as well as purport of said orders could not be considered to be that entire investigation was not correct nor that entire investigation was an eyewash. In case, investigation was not proper, appropriate direction ought to be passed for further investigation or to consider the protest petition as a complaint case, but same was not adopted. (xii) I have carefully perused statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, later on by the Special Investigation Team as well as questions and their answers in Lie Detector Test and Narco Test and its conclusions. It could be summarised as follows: (a) Sandeep Yadav, a relative of deceased in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that after initial commotion, staff of the hospital accompanied deceased to outside hospital building and after sometime he came to know that deceased has met with an accident. No involvement of doctor couple was disclosed in entire occurrence (para 5 of present judgment). The witness has denied to be an eye witness of occurrence in his statement recorded by SIT. (Para 10 of present judgment). (b) Gandhi Singh and Arvind Yadav, attendant to different patients have stated in their statements recorded under section 161 CR.P.C which corroborates with above referred statement of Sandeep Yadav. They also stated that it was an accidental death. Gandhi Singh has witnessed accident also. He has specifically denied involvement of doctor couple. (Para 6 of present judgment). (c). (b) Gandhi Singh and Arvind Yadav, attendant to different patients have stated in their statements recorded under section 161 CR.P.C which corroborates with above referred statement of Sandeep Yadav. They also stated that it was an accidental death. Gandhi Singh has witnessed accident also. He has specifically denied involvement of doctor couple. (Para 6 of present judgment). (c). Shrimati Chinta Devi, a worker of the hospital has narrated entire occurrence in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C that how it commenced and later on deceased met with an accident and died. She has also denied any role of doctor couple in the occurrence and that they were informed about the occurrence after it got over.(Parara 6 of present judgment). (d). Statements of Smt. Chinta Devi, Gandhi Singh and Arvind Yadav (above referred) were also recorded subsequently by SIT also. (Paras 11 and 12 of present judgement), wherein also they narrated similar version as stated in their respective earlier statements about earlier commotion and later on deceased died due to an accident. Presence and involvement of Doctor Couple was again denied in entire occurrence. (e). During investigation, the Investigating Officer as well as SIT has recorded statement of other attendants also and they all stated that after initial commotion deceased went outside and met with an accident (para 11 and 12 of present judgment). (f). Doctors who have conducted postmortem have also not ruled out accidental death in their statements recorded during investigation (para 7 of present judgment) which is also supported by an expert report from Sanyukt Nideshak Rajya Chikitsa Vidhi Visheshagya dated 24.4.2015 that ante-mortem injuries could be received it deceased came in contact with a fast moving vehicle (para 8 of present judgment). (g) The complainant, (Anandi Singh Yadav) has claimed himself to be an eye witness in FIR as well as in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC (Paras 3 and 5 of present judgment), however in his statement recorded before SIT he has specifically denied to be an eye-witness and that he came to the place of occurrence after death of deceased on an information given by his daughter and stated as informed by her daughter (Basanti Devi) as a hearsay witness. (Para 10 of present judgment). (Para 10 of present judgment). (h) Dr Zahruddin working at hospital has stated in his statement that he has recorded commotion and accordingly a video audio recording was taken on record and by Forensic Expert a CD was also prepared (Para 11 of present judgment). Said judgment clip was played before a witness Mulayam, (a relative of deceased) who stated that it was a voice of deceased, who repeatedly saying ‘Kaun hai Mera’ though visuals in video was not very clear (Para 12 of present judgment). (i) Statements of witnesses also indicate that deceased was violent by his behaviour and was not in his complete sense. Witnesses have stated that his relatives were also requesting to stop him that otherwise he would cause injury to himself, though there is no material in charge-sheet about mental condition of deceased. (j) . Two witnesses (Smt Chinta Devi and Gandhi Singh) have undergone Lie Detection/Polygraphic Test and Narco Analysis Test. (Paras 15 and 16 of present judgment). Both witnesses in their respective Lie Detection/Polygraphic Test Test have specifically stated that they have not seen the Doctor Couple being involved in occurrence as well as both witnesses have witnessed accident also. (k) Both witnesses have also went through Narco Analysis Test wherein both remain consistent on their earlier statements and replied to specific questions that staff was not involved in commotion. They took deceased at a distance and after sometime deceased went outside and met with an accident. Both have stated that they were eye-witness to accident also. It was also specifically replied that doctor couple was not involved in any manner in entire occurrence. (l) In aforesaid circumstances only witness who claimed herself as an eye-witness is Basanti Devi (daughter of complainant/sister of deceased). She has not come forward for Lie Detection/Polygraphic Test and for NARCO Analysis Test. Her statement before SIT would be relevant (Para 10 of the judgment). She reiterated that doctor couple and others (in all 9 persons) were assaulting his brother. They confined him in a room. Later on she came to know about death, however, to a specific question whether doctor couple was present, she replied that she did not recognize the Doctor Couple. She also added that they were not present. She reiterated that doctor couple and others (in all 9 persons) were assaulting his brother. They confined him in a room. Later on she came to know about death, however, to a specific question whether doctor couple was present, she replied that she did not recognize the Doctor Couple. She also added that they were not present. Relevant question and its answer are mentioned hereinafter:- (xiii) It appears to be a case that initially deceased had an altercation with attendant of a patient at Hospital. At relevant time, staff of hospital interfered and asked him to go out and after sometime he was found dead. During investigation, witnesses saw how death occurred, whereas staff of hospital and an attendant of patient has claimed themselves to be an eyewitness that they witnessed entire occurrence that after initial commotion, deceased went outside the hospital, where he died due to an accident with a vehicle. Despite efforts, vehicle was not recovered/identified. (xiv) Learned Trial Court has pointed out few questions and answers given during Lie Detector Test and Narco Analysis Test to take a view that staff was not present at place of occurrence to witness that it was a case of accident, which was not a correct approach rather entire statement was required to be considered. Only that at late hour at hospital said witness was giving water at garden of hospital, her presence could not be considered to be doubtful. Their statements and answers to various questions asked during investigation including during tests could not be considered to be absolutely false. The Learned Magistrate ought to have considered reports of scientific tests also that they have concluded about truthiness of witnesses. (xv) To summon is a serious affair and it becomes more serious when summon is issued after rejecting outcome of investigation i.e. a Final Report. The required reasons are missing in impugned order. Entire investigation i.e. by police, by Special Investigation Team along with Scientific Investigation could not be rejected merely for sake of it, rather there must be reasons to reject it however, such reasons are missing in impugned order. (xvi) In the impugned order, consideration of above referred analysis of statements recorded during investigation and expert reports and scientific investigation is absolutely missing. Summoning order was passed by referring few answers and by commenting on nature of investigation, which is not the required consideration. (xvi) In the impugned order, consideration of above referred analysis of statements recorded during investigation and expert reports and scientific investigation is absolutely missing. Summoning order was passed by referring few answers and by commenting on nature of investigation, which is not the required consideration. (xvii) The Chief Judicial Magistrate has placed reliance on statements of complainant and his daughter however, failed to appreciate that complainant has denied himself to be an eyewitness and his daughter has denied involvement of Doctor Couple in occurrence. She even don’t recognize them. On basis of such evidence, summoning order could not legally survive as other material such as evidence of relatives of deceased, staff of hospital, result of scientific test, doctor’s statement, expert opinion are sufficient that it was a case of accident and not a case of homicide, such nature of evidence could not be ignored. (xviii) In A.C Aggarwal (supra) question was to take cognizance on investigation by appropriate persons. In M/s India Carat (supra) legal position as discussed above was approved that “the Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case” i.e. in such case there must be application of mind. In Bhushan Kumar (supra) explicit reasons were not required to mention that cognizance is taken on a charge-sheet, however, same is not applicable when after rejecting a final report, cognizance is taken and summon is issued. Gambhir Singh (supra) was in regard to a complaint case. 28. The outcome of above detailed analysis is that impugned orders are unreasoned for the purpose to take cognizance and to summon, after rejecting outcome of Final Report as well as Revisional Court has also failed to consider it therefore, they are liable to be set-aside. 29. The outcome of above discussion is that there are various legally sustainable evidence that applicants (i.e. a Doctor Couple) was not involved in the entire occurrence as well as it could not be ruled out that deceased died due to an accident, therefore, it is a fit case where inherent power could be invoked and thus impugned orders could not survive qua to the applicants. 30. Now question left to consider whether other accused (Ramshakti Prajapati, Sabbir, Zamil and Abdul Ansari) who are not before this Court, would get benefit of this order or not. 30. Now question left to consider whether other accused (Ramshakti Prajapati, Sabbir, Zamil and Abdul Ansari) who are not before this Court, would get benefit of this order or not. I am of opinion that since in this judgment entire investigation is being considered and an opinion is formed, therefore, in the interest of justice and to secure the ends of justice as well said accused are liable to get its benefit. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 9.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No.193 of 2015 (Dr. Rajesh Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as the order taking cognizance and summoning order dated 26.06.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2257 of 2015 (State Vs. Dr. Rajesh Singh and others) arising out of case crime no.429 of 2015, under Sections 147,323,504,302 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District Ghazipur as well as entire proceedings arising out of aforesaid case crime number are liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 31. The Court is also of considered opinion that by present judgment, the Court could not estop the complainant to pursue the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur to choose among the other alternatives as discussed in Rakesh (supra) and Zunaid (supra) and for that the complainant will have liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 32. With aforesaid observation and direction, present application is disposed of.