Hariom Mishra vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard on the question of admission. By this Criminal Revision u/s 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. the applicants have challenged the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna in MJC No. 57/2012 whereby the respondent No. 1 was directed to reinvestigate the matter.

The prosecution case, in short, is that at Police Station Nayagaon an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the applicants, and therefore a crime for the offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC was registered. After due investigation the respondent No. 1 submitted a final report with the result that no offence was made out and a false case was prepared by the complainant. In this respect, the learned CJM called the complainant and his witnesses and witnesses were examined. Thereafter it was directed by the learned CJM to reinvestigate the matter.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that no criminal complaint was filed by the complainant before the CJM Satna. When the final report is submitted, then it is the duty of the Magistrate to get view of the complainant about that final report whereas the CJM Satna recorded the evidence of the complainant as well as so many persons under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., whereas no complaint was filed by the complainant before the CJM.

When a final report is considered, the according to the judgment dated 18.7.2013 passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of "Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana", (Criminal Appeal No. 148/2013 along with others appeals) it is for the Magistrate either to accept the final report or to take cognizance of the case. If after considering the final report, the Magistrate takes a view that the investigation was incomplete only then the investigation could be directed by the CJM, Satna. In the present case, there was named FIR and some witnesses supported the complainant. Under such circumstances, there was no reason for reinvestigation in the matter, and therefore looking to the facts of the present case, the learned CJM had only two options, firstly either to take cognizance of the case or to accept the final report.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the impugned order passed by the learned CJM Satna is not according to the provisions of law. He could not direct for further investigation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the learned CJM Satna in MJC No. 57/2012 is hereby set aside. It is directed that the learned CJM Satna shall consider the matter afresh and if he finds that the offence is made out, then he can take cognizance in the matter, otherwise he may accept the final report. A copy of this order be sent to the CJM Satna for information and compliance.