Mr. Chandrashekar vs The Sub-Inspector of Police and Smt. V.N. Malathi

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15th September, 2013 in CC. No. 3294/2012 passed by the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Mysore. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 507, 420, 498A and 506 of IPC. The trial Court referred the matter to the police u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. After investigation, the police filed ''B'' report as per Annexure A. The respondent filed objections contesting the ''B'' report. Under the impugned order the trial Court directed to register the case for the offences punishable under Sections 423 and 506 of IPC and issued summons. Aggrieved by this order of the trial Court the petitioner is before this Court.

A perusal of the impugned order specifies that no reasons are assigned for rejecting the ''B'' report. Indeed the trial Court has not rejected the ''B'' report in the impugned order. It is obligatory on the part of the trial Court either to accept or reject the ''B'' report. In that event, the trial Court has to give reasons for rejecting the ''B'' report. Since there is no consideration of the ''B'' report by the trial Court the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The matter requires to be remanded for reconsideration. In an identical circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving-Cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh Vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), has held as under:

The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the Police and he may decide to issue process even if the Police recommend that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further. The Magistrate after receiving the Police report, may, without issuing process or dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted: to him and proceed to record the statements upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present u/s 200 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to dismiss the complaint or issue process. The mere fact that he had earlier ordered an investigation u/s 156(3) and received a report u/s 173 will not have the effect of total effacement of the complaint and therefore the Magistrate will not be barred from proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204. Thus, a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation u/s 156(3) and receives a police report u/s 173(1), may, thereafter, do one of 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 u/s 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 u/s 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses u/s 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry u/s 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.

For the reasons stated above this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.09.2013 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to trial Court for reconsideration in accordance with law.