JUDGEMENT
K.N.Ojha, J. -
(1.)Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA and have gone through the record.
(2.)Instant revision has been preferred against order dated 31/10/1984 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in State v. Tilak Ram & two others under Section 302, police station Kandla, district Muzaffar Nagar, by which the final report submitted by the police was rejected and order was passed for registering the case under Section 302 I.P.C. against Tilak Ram, Sohan Vir and Mohak Singh, all residents of village Bhabira, police station Kandla, district Muzaffar Nagar. An application was moved before the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar, on 22/4/1983 by Sukhbir Singh, resident of village Bijrol, police station Baraut, district Meerut, that he had married his daughter Sunita with Mohak Singh, revisionist, 9 years before. Two children were born from their wedlock. She was being harassed by her husband and his family members Smt. Vidya, mother-in-law, Tilak Ram, father-in-law and Dever Sohan Vir. On 20/4/1983 they strangulated her to death and lodged a false report at the police station. Some persons went to the complainantTs village and informed him about the death of Sunita. Dead body of Sunita was sent to Muzaffar Nagar where funeral was performed at the residence of the complainant. He went to lodge FIR against the revisionists but the police was avoiding. On his application the Superintendent of Police directed the Circle Officer, Shamli, to look into the matter at once and action be taken. Investigation was done, thereafter final report was submitted, on which two witnesses Jaipal Singh and Rampal Singh rued their affidavits that their statements were not correctly recorded by the investigating officer. After perusal of the case diary the impugned order was passed.
(3.)The learned counsel for the revisionist has cited H.S. Bains v. State in which it has been held by Honble the Apex Court that a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under Section 156(3) and receives a police report under Section 173(1) of Cr. P.C. may thereafter do one of the three things:
(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 Cr. P.C.
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. While laying down the law Honble, the Apex Court considered AIR 1968 SC 117 and AIR 1977 SC 2401.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.