1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.668/2000 (Nisar Ahmad & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Anr.) S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER : 12th MAY, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr.Nawab Ali Rathore, for the petitioners Mr.Bhavnish Kumawat, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: By filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance by the Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate No.17, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 14.6.1999 in Cr.Case No.171/99 (Noor Mohd. vs. State). Briefly stated the facts of the case for disposal of this petition are that the complainant-respondent first lodged a report in the Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 22.7.1997. On the report after investigation, it was found that no case was made out against the accused petitioners under sections 323, 147, 349 & 448 I.P.C. It appears that complainant when coming to know that proper investigation has not been made in his matter, he also filed a complaint on 24th July, 1998. The learned trial court after recording statements under Section 2 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and under section 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and also took into consideration the investigation done in F.I.R. No.419/97 lodged by the complainant and finding that prima facie the petitioners were liable to be tried for the offence punishable under Sections 448 & 379 I.P.C. took cognizance against the petitioners vide its order dated 14.6.1999. The petitioners having felt aggrieved with the order of the learned Magistrate preferred a revision petition(revision petition No.106/99 – Nisar Ahmad & Ors. vs. State of Raj.) which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide its order dated 18.4.2000. Hence this petition has been filed. It has been contended that in relation to the same incident F.I.R. as well as the complaint filed, therefore, the complaint filed later in time was liable to be rejected and no cognizance could have been taken on the complaint. It has been contended that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material and particularly when in investigation it was found that no case was made out. It is contended that it is a proper case, where the order of cognizance as well as the proceedings pending before the trial court requires to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. After having considered the submissions and on perusal of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also taking into consideration that in the instant case on 3 submitting final report, it appears that a complaint was filed and the learned trial court recorded statements of the complainant and his witnesses and also considered the final report. The trial court after discussing the material on record came to the conclusion that prima facie material was available to proceed against the accused and took cognizance. It was also ordered by the trial court that investigation made and report submitted earlier in F.I.R. No.419/97 that should also be made part of the present complaint proceedings, both matters were consolidated. The contention of the learned counsel that it is not permissible under the law to proceed on a complaint which was filed later in time in view of the fact that a F.I.R. was already lodged and in that police reached to the conclusion that no case was made out, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel and the contention is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that in the cases police files final report then on filing protest petition the court can take cognizance in the matter. In the instant case, as has been found that the trial court took into consideration the matter and also statements of the complainant and his witnesses, therefore, I do not find a reason to exercise the powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-