The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Investigating Agency to submit a report as per Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Magistrate's jurisdiction to accept or disagree with the report and give appropriate directions for further investigation.

( 1 ) THREE delinquents Lalit, Manoj and Rajesh have been produced by Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar, SHO, P. S. Mukherjee Nagar. Files have also been produced.

( 2 ) AFTER the delinquents were caught by Head constable Joy Bestial and he recovered from I their possession tool bag containing keys and. "pana" and stolen car stereos, which led to registration of FIR No. 438/2001 of P. S. Mukherjee Nagar for offences under Sections 379/411/34 IPC. The delinquents are alleged to have made disclosure statements of having committed thefts of car stereos. Seven FIR Nos. 275/2001, 325/2001. 346/2001, 351/2001, 375/2001, 427/2001 and 437/2001 were found to have been registered at P. S. Mukherjee Nagar for theft of car stereos. On their disclosure statement seven more stereos were recovered, at their instance, from one shakeel Kabari. Thereafter the delinquents were also arrested alongwith Shakeel Kabari in these seven casses. Test identification parade of the case property was got conducted before the Link Metropolitan Magistrate. Complainants of the said FIRs dit not identify the seven stereos.

( 3 ) IN view of the above the Investigating Officers moved separate applications before the Metropolitan magistrate seeking discharge of Shakeel Kabari in seven cases. Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal, learned Metropolitan magistrate accepted the prayer and discharged Shakeel in all seven cases. In the status report filed today under the signatures of Shri Rajeshwar Kumar, SHO, P. S. Mukherjee Nagar it has been stated that Kalandras under section 103 Delhi Police Act have been prepared against shakeel Kabari in seven aforementioned FIRs and the same will be filed before the concerned Metropolitan magistrate.

( 4 ) APPLICATIONS were also filed before the Juvenile court in seven cases by the Investigating Officers for discharge of the delinquents stating that there is no case made out for sending up the delinquents for trial, when applications came up before the Juvenile Court an order was passed in FIR No. 351/2001 discharging the delinquents. In the remaining six cases the applications for discharge were kept pending and on 11. 10. 2001 the Juvenile Court asked the Investigating Officers to file charge sheets against the delinquents. Pursuant to such directions charge sheets were filed.

( 5 ) WE have perused the records. The records reveal that on 3. 11. 2001 the delinquents were produced before the juvenile Court. On that date the discharge applications, which had earlier been filed by the Investigation Officer also came up for consideration, Discharge of the delinquents was sought on the ground of non identification of the case property in the test identification parade got conducted by the Investigating Officers. The Juvenile court had also summoned the complainants for the same date but were not present. The following order was passed by the Juvenile Court in each case :-

"pr. APP for State all the 3 delinquents produced from OHB-II. This order shall take up the discharge applications of the IO in all the above mentioned cases, their discharge is requested on the ground of non-identification of the case property in TIP. The complainant was summoned for today in the court but he is not present and this is the last date for placing the chargesheet if application for discharge is not disposed off. Thus the court has observed that the complainant is required for the purpose of deciding the discharge application in all the cases and the present circumstances, considering the period of custody, IO is directed to place all the filles after compliance of all the formalities pertaining to report of Sec 173 Cr. p. C. against ail the delinquents and placed it before the court. The case of discharge of all the delinquents on the grounds taken, shall be considered after evidence of the complainant as court witness even on filling of chargesheet. Complainant be summoned afresh. All the cases are considered as chargesheet. Though, IO is directed to place it