JUDGMENT
Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
1. Challenge in this revision preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the ‘Cr.P.C.’)is to the order dated 13.08.2007, passed by Sri Susheel Kumar, the then Judicial Magistrate Rampur, in Case No. 19 of 2008 (Daya Ram v. Shanti Prasad and Ors.), whereby accepting the final report submitted by the police of P.S. Milak Khanam, District Rampur, in case crime No. 81/2005, under Sections 409/504/506 IPC, the objections filed by the revisionist/complainant Daya Ram have been rejected.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the revisionist Daya Ram had lodged an FIR on 01.04.2005 at P.S. Milak Khanam, District Rampur, where a case under Section 409/504/506 IPC was registered at crime No. 81/05 against Shanti Prasad and Mohd. Ahmad (respondents No. 2 & 3 herein). It appears that after investigation, final report was submitted by the police. When notice of that final report was issued to the complainant, he filed objections in the court of Magistrate concerned on 04.01.2006. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and going through the case diary, the then judicial magistrate Rampur rejected the final report and summoned the accused Shanti Prasad and Mohd Ahmad to face the trial under Section 409/504/506 IPC vide order dated 06.01.2006 passed in case No. 118/12 of 2005. That order was challenged by the accused persons in the court of Sessions Judge Rampur by means of Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2006, which was decided on 07.10.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Rampur, whereby revision was allowed and after setting aside the order dated 06.01.2006, the case was sent back to the court of magistrate concerned for passing fresh order on the final report and objections of the complainant keeping in view the observations made in the judgement. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 13.08.2007, which has been challenge in this revision.
3. I have heard Sri M.B. Mathur, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record carefully. Since the accused persons have no right to contest the revision against the impugned order, hence notices have not been issued to them.
4. It was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order has been passed by the learned magistrate in utter disregard of the order dated 07.10.2006 passed in Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2006, and hence the said order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It was also submitted that if in the opinion of the learned magistrate, the material in the case diary was not adequate to take cognizance against the accused and to summon them to face the trial, then the objections/ protest petition filed by the complainant against the final report ought to have been registered as complaint and after affording opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence under Section 202 Cr.P.C., further order either under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. should have been passed. In support of these contentions, the learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the case of Pakhando and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2001(43) ACC 1096.
5. The learned AGA on the other hand submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, as the magistrate can disagree with the conclusion drawn by the police after investigation and it was not obligatory for the magistrate to treat the objections against final report as complaint.
6. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. From the record it is revealed that summoning order dated 06.01.2006 passed by the then judicial magistrate Rampur was challenged by the accused persons in Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2006, which was decided on 07.10.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Rampur. While allowing that revision vide judgment dated 07.10.2006, it was specifically observed by the learned lower Revisional Court that if in the opinion of the learned Magistrate, the evidence in the case diary is not sufficient, then the learned Magistrate ought to have proceeded further after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C. while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has totally ignored this observation made by the learned lower Revisional Court in its judgment dated 07.10.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2006. Copy of this judgement is available on lower court, being Paper No. 9 Kha/82 to 9Kha/87.It is very surprising and unfortunate too that the learned Judicial Magistrate passing the impugned order did not care to pursue this judgement of lower Revisional Court, as there is no mention of this judgement in the impugned order dated 13.08.2007. The objections of the complainant against final report have not at all been considered in the impugned order, although there was specific direction in the judgement dated 07.10.2006 of Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2006 that if the material in case diary is not sufficient to take cognizance, then the objections against the final report ought to have been treated as complaint and further action should have been taken after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order which has been passed ignoring aforesaid observation, which virtually was a direction of the learned lower Revisional Court, is liable to be set aside.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pakhando and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2001(43) ACC 1096 had the occasion to consider the matter regarding the procedure to be adopted by the Magistrate/Court on submission of the final report by the police. Having taken various authorities into consideration, the following observations have been made by the Division Bench in para 15 of the judgement at page 1100 of the report:
From the aforesaid decisions, it is thus clear that where the Magistrate receives final report, the following four courses are open to him and he may adopt any one of them as the facts and circumstances of the case may require:
(I). 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
(II) He may take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process straightway 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
(III) he may order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner; or
(IV) 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 thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.
In view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pakhando v. State (supra), the objections/protest petition filed by the complainant against the final report submitted by the police in Case Crime No. 81 of 2005, under Sections 409/504/506 IPC, P.S. Milak Khanam (Rampur) ought to have been treated as complaint and after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C., further order under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, should have been passed.
8. In the case of Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy and Anr. 2003 (46) ACC 182 (S.C.), the three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there cannot be any doubt or dispute that only because the Magistrate has accepted the final report, the same by itself would not stand in his way to take cognizance of the offence on a protest/complaint petition on the same or similar allegations. From the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in above mentioned ruling, it is crystal clear that even after acceptance of the final report by the Magistrate, the complainant can file protest petition and such petition can be treated as complaint and after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C., summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. can be passed, if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In the instant case, the revisionist/complainant has already filed objections against final report which have been rejected by the learned magistrate vide impugned order dated 13.08.2007 without following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C. as directed by the learned lower Revisional Court in its judgment dated 07.10.2006 passed in Crl. Revision No. 27 of 2006.
9. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2007 rejecting the objections of the complainant against final report is set aside and the case is sent back to the court of judicial magistrate Rampur with the direction to decide the objections/protest petition of the complainant afresh, treating the same as complaint and following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV Cr.P.C.
The Office is directed to return lower court record expeditiously along with a copy of this judgement for further necessary action.