1 Govind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.725/2004 DATE OF ORDER : 20th MARCH , 2009 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.J.S.Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr.O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Vineet Jain for Mr.Sandeep Mehta for respondent No.2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.09.04 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases -cum- Additional Sessions Judge , Bhilwara in Cri. Revision Petition No.30/2004 (Jeewan Lal vs. State) by which the learned Special Judge, while accepting the revision petition, has set aside the order of taking cognizance against the non- petitioner- respondent No.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.04.2000 Govind Singh complainant stated in his police 2 statement , which was recorded at Govt. Hospital, Kotdi by Bhanwar Lal, ASI, Police Station, Kotdi wherein it was stated that on 16.04.2000 at about 08.00 PM, he along with Nand Singh and Devi Lal, were going from Shahpura to Kotdi on motor cycle bearing No. RJ-06 3M-6529. When they reached near village Rased at that time one jeep coming from front side in a very high speed dashed with the motor cycle as a result of that he, Nand Singh and Devi Lal received several injuries and Devi Lal succumbed to the injuries on the spot. On the basis of this statement, SHO, Police Station Kotdi registered a case as CR No.72/2000 for offence under sections 279, 337, and 304- A IPC and started investigation. During investigation, witnesses disclosed the name of accused Jeewan Lal. It was further alleged that while he was driving the said jeep No.RJ-06-C- 3404 caused accident resulted into said injuries. It is revealed from the record that the investigation remained in different hands and ultimately the police, CID (C.B.) submitted the negative final report in the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Division)- cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi. Notice of final report was issued to the complainant petitioner and in pursuance of that notice complainant submitted protest petition against the final 3 report. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotdi recorded the statements of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the alleged eye witness Jagdish under section 202 Cr.P.C. thereafter vide order dated 10.10.03 took cognizance against the accused non-petitioner No.2 Jeewan Lal under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and summoned him through bailable warrant. The accused respondent, being aggrieved by the said order , preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, who transferred the same to the court of Addl.Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara and thereafter it was transferred to the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara. The learned revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order of cognizance vide his order dated 13.09.04. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Special Judge , Bhilwara, the complainant petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Notice of this revision petition was given to the respondents, record of the case was called and arguments were heard. 4 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned revisional court has not properly considered and appreciated the material available on record and has erroneously set aside the cognizance order, that is liable to be quashed and set aside. It was further submitted that the initial investigation was done by Bhanwar Lal, ASI, who inspected the site and recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained medical reports, thereafter the investigation was made by Ram Prasad, C.I. He again recorded the statements of witnesses and inspected site and collected relevant materials. On the basis of collected material, he came to the conclusion that the accident had been caused by the said jeep RJ-06 C-3404 being driven by the accused non-petitioner Jeewan Lal. He further rightly concluded that in that accident , Govind Singh , Nand Singh and Devi Lal received injuries and Devi Lal succumbed to his injuries. Learned counsel submitted that the investigating officer, after applying his mind, has drawn a right conclusion but as the accused Jeewan Lal is an 5 influential person, therefore, on his application, investigation was transferred time and again to different police authorities. In that sequence, investigation was handed over to CID, C.B., Range, Ajmer and investigation was handed over to Ram Kishan Sargara, who also made investigation and found the accused non-petitioner guilty for causing accident. Thereafter, again on the request of accused petitioner Jeewan Lal investigation was transferred to Rajender Singh, C.I. , CID, CB. It was submitted that the Circle Inspector Rajendra Singh, without conducting any fresh investigation, gave wrong report that accident took place by an unknown vehicle and he did not find the involvement of the accused non-petitioner Jeewan Lal and submitted negative report. It was submitted that in the background of these facts, before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner submitted a protest petition and on that protest petition, his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of one eye witness Jagdish under section 202 Cr.P.C., were recorded and the learned Magistrate after discussing in detail, took cognizance under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC against Jeewan Lal. It was submitted that the learned trial Magistrate has also discussed the statements 6 and other material collected during investigation by the police and the conclusions given thereon in his order. It was urged that at the stage of taking cognizance, no detailed order, as well as reasons, were required to be recorded, even though the learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned and detailed order. Against that order, revision was filed by the accused Jeewan Lal but the revisional court, without properly considering the impugned order and material available on record, wrongly set aside the said order of taking cognizance. It was submitted that the learned revisional court exceeded his jurisdiction, while appreciating the evidence in such a way as it was required to be analysed at the final stage, but that was not the proper stage. It was urged that mere not disclosing the name of accused at initial stage and minor contradiction in the statements, could not be grounds for setting aside the order of cognizance. The material facts were on record that initial police officers, who also reached to the conclusion that accident was caused by accused Jeewan Lal but this reports have not been discussed by the learned revisional court. At the time of taking cognizance and issuing process, the learned Judicial Magistrate was expected to satisfy himself with regard 7 to sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused and to that extent the learned Magistrate has perused the material collected during investigation , the conclusion drawn by the different investigating officers and the statements taken by himself under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before passing order. Thus, there were ample material to satisfy himself and there was no illegality in that order, that order should have been maintained, but the learned revisional court did not properly apply legal provisions and quashed the said order. Thus, the impugned order of revisional court is liable to be set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate deserves to be restored. During the course of arguments in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments given in Nagawwa vs. Veeranna [ 1976 Cr.L.J. 1533 ], Jagdish Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2004 SC 1734], Harshad J.Shah vs. LIC of India [AIR 1997 SC 2459], Dy.Chief Controller of Imports & Exports vs. Roshanlal Agarwal [AIR 2003 SC 1900] and Gela Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [ 2005 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 505 ]. Again on the strength of 8 the above submissions, a prayer was made to quash the impugned order and restore the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate for taking cognizance and revision may be allowed. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused respondent Jeewan Lal submitted that in this case, admittedly the accident took place on 16.04.2000. Even at the time of giving statement to police on 16.04.2000, he has not disclosed the name of the accused. Thereafter, during investigation, after considerable delay, name of the accused has been disclosed. This falsify the whole story. It was submitted that the said jeep, as well as the accused, was not involved in this case. With an ulterior motive to get compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, name of the respondent has been added. The police, after investigation, ultimately did not find the involvement of the accused petitioner and rightly submitted negative final report. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance against the accused non-petitioner , has not properly appreciated the 9 material available on record. It was urged that it was the obligatory duty of the concerned Magistrate to give a full weightage to the conclusion and material collected during investigation and further the learned Magistrate was under obligation to state , in case of disagreeing with the said report, reasons for that. But in this case, the learned Magistrate has not given due weightage to the police reports. Thus, the order of the learned Magistrate was not sustainable and it was rightly quashed by the learned revisional court. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Magistrate has also recorded the statement of complainant as well as other witness but these statements are not trust worthy as the statement of complainant was against record and the name of other witness was not disclosed during statements before the police. Thus, there was no sufficient material for taking cognizance .It was prayed that the order passed by the learned revisional court is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity , that may be maintained and the revision may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the judgments given in Suresh vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa 10 Danannava [2005 Cr.L.R. (SC) 295 ], Baldev vs. Stae of Rajasthan [2006 (8)RDD 4396 (Raj.)] , Abdul Rehman vs. State of Rajasthan [ 1993 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 591] , Gopal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan [2005 (10) RDD 4197(Raj.)] and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 ]. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the impugned order as well as the record of the case. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the matter remained under investigation for a pretty long time at different police authorities. At the initial stage, after investigation, the police authorities have come to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the said Vehicle driven by the respondent Jeewan Lal. It further reveals that thereafter, the investigation was transferred to the police authorities at the request of petitioner and ultimately the investigation reports submitted by Rajendra Singh, with the finding that the said Vehicle and the accused Jeewan Lal was not found involved in the accident, but from the perusal of proceedings it reveals that the last I.O., Rajendra Singh, has not conducted any independent 11 investigation and has concluded the matter on the material available on record. He has not assigned the grounds for disagreeing the previous reports conducted by the different investigating officers. The learned Magistrate, to whom the negative final report was submitted , who after recording the statements of the complainant and eye witness under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after perusing the material collected during investigation, came to the satisfaction that there were sufficient material to proceed with the case, that was his judicial discretion. I have perused the statements of witnesses. The complainant has stated that he disclosed the name of accused at the initial stage to police . Further it has come on record that he was severely injured and remained busy in treatment . He was shifted to Ahmedabad for treatment . Thus the delay in disclosing the name of accused is self explained and at this stage no adverse inference can be drawn. The learned Magistrate, while passing the said order, has also discussed the reasons for disbelieving the last conclusion drawn by the police. I have considered the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge . The learned revisional court, while 12 hearing the revision petition, has not properly appreciated the material keeping in view that whether there were sufficient material to proceed against the accused in this case ?. The revisional court has set aside the order of cognizance on the grounds that the petitioner has not disclosed the name of accused at initial stage and there are contradictions in their statements . I have perused the grounds but none of them are sustainable and on that basis the order of taking cognizance was not liable to be quashed . The learned Magistrate has passed a detailed order that should have been maintained. In this respect judgments cited by the petitioners' side also support the conclusion. In case of Nagawwa v. Veeranna (supra) it has been observed that at the stage of issuing process, Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint for satisfying , whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. He is not required to enter into detailed discussion on merits and demerits of the case. In the case of Jagidsh Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Hon'ble apex court observed that at the stage of taking cognizance Magistrate had only to decide whether sufficient grounds exist or not for further proceedings 13 in the matter. Further, it was observed that detailed enquiry is not needed at this stage. Thus, the order of the revisional court is liable to be quashed and set aside. I have also perused the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate of taking cognizance against the accused Jeewan Lal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the material collected and the conclusions drawn by the police authority, but the contentions are not having force. The learned Magistrate, while passing the order, has perused and discussed the material in this order, further more before taking cognizance, he has also examined the complainant as well as the eye witness. At that stage, he was not expected to go in detail on the merit of the case. Prima facie, he was to satisfy that there should be sufficient material to proceed. I have also perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel . In the case of Suresh vs. Mahadevappa ( supra) and in other judgments it has been observed that at 14 the time of taking cognizance, Magistrate should have perused and considered the material collected during investigation, but as discussed above, in this case the learned Magistrate has discussed that material in his order before taking cognizance. Thus, those judgments do not help their contentions. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the order of the revisional court is liable to be set aside and looking to the scope of section 204 Cr.P.C. the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 10.10.03 deserves to be restored, by which he has taken cognizance against the accused respondent. In the net result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the revisional court dated 13.09.04 is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10.10.03 is restored. It is also made clear that the learned trial court will not be influenced by any observations made in this order. Looking to the facts of the case, learned trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case. 15 (MANAK MOHTA) J. l.george