1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1981 of 2010 Sau Nayan and anr v. State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Anil S. Mardikar, Adv for applicants Mr D.B. Yengal, APP for respdt no.1 Mr V.G. Bhamburkar, Adv for respdt no.2 Coram: A. P. Bhangale, J Dated: 14th June 2011 1. Cri. Application No. 327 of 2011 : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Criminal Application No. 327 of 2011 has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to delete names of respondents no. 4 to 6 since the applicants could not collect correct addresses of those respondents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Necessary deletion be caused forthwith. Application stands disposed of accordingly. 2. Cri. Application No. 1981 of 2010 : Heard learned counsel for applicants; learned APP for respondent no.1-State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 3. Respondent no. 2 filed Regular Criminal Case No. 75 of 2007 before the Judicial Magistrate, FC, Court No. 1, Khamgaon inter-alia against applicants for the offence 2 punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate on going through verification statement of respondent no. 2 (complainant) issued process against all the accused including the applicants by order dated 26.5.2007. Applicants filed criminal revision against the said order. However, the revisional court by its judgment and order dated 9th September 2010 dismissed the revision. Hence, this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the past, police report containing similar allegations as are in the private complaint case, was lodged by respondent no. 1. Crime No. 32/2005 was registered against the applicants for an offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. However, the Investigating Officer Mr B.R. Rathod after investigation did not find any sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the applicants to learned Magistrate and Police Report under Section 169 Cr. P. C. was filed and the same was accepted vide order dated 3.3.2006. He, therefore, urges that private complaint for the same accusations is barred and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences on the basis of private complaint. 5. Now, the question that arises for consideration is, when the Police Report under Section 169 Cr. P.C. is submitted and accepted by the Magistrate, whether the complainant is debarred from pursuing remedy under Chapter XV of the Code 3 of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not contain any bar to the effect that once a Police Report is accepted by the Court, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence on the basis of private complaint or the subsequent trial of the case is illegal or irregular. The Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of offences even if police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. Had there been such a bar, police would have possessed unbridled powers as to filing of charge-sheet/Final Report. Therefore, contention of the counsel for applicants that the order of issuance of process is without jurisdiction, is misplaced and deserves rejection. 6. In the present case verification statement of the complainant was recorded by the Magistrate and after going through the contents of complaint and the accusations made, the learned Magistrate passed order dated 26.5.2007 directing issuance of process. The revisional court also considered all the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants. It has referred to various rulings of the High Courts and the Apex Court. The revisional court has found that there was no double jeopardy, because after considering the documents, the Magistrate thought it proper to issue process. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. Application is accordingly rejected. JUDGE joshi