The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Magistrate is not barred from ordering the reopening of a case against a petitioner, even after discharging the petitioner based on a report filed by the police under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. The short but interesting question which falls for consideration in this criminal petition presented under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) is whether the petitioner, who has been discharged by Magistrate on the report purportedly filed by the police under Section 169, Cr. P.C. can be subjected to further investigation by the police. The petitioner, who is implicated in connection with Shillong Sadar P.S. Case No. 86(5)09 Under Section 120-B/224/333, IPC, was discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in her order dated 5-6-2009, which is as follows:

Date 5-6-2009.

C.R. put up today. Seen and perused discharged report from liabilities of the instant case against accused person, Shri Thomas Nongtdu from S.I. K.R. Marak, I.O. of the case dated 5-6-2009.

S. I. Marak, vide report above, submits that the accused named above, who was arrested and forwarded before this Court on 4-6-2009 was thoroughly interrogated and during interrogation it transpires that:

1. The accused is having good background and is presently holding the post as MDC of JHADC.

2. That the accused is in the habit of helping people who came to him for donation in need for the expenditure due to suffering/illness and Social cause.

3. That the lady who came to him told him about her mother who is suffering from chronic disease as she came to learn that the accused used to help the needy people.

4. That the accused is having no past criminal records.

That under the above circumstances and further that during investigation, no prima facie case about the involvement of the accused could not be established nor any evidence is forthcoming to establish his involvement. Hence I.O. prays for discharging the accused person Shri Thomas Nongtdu from liabilities of the instant case.

In view of the fact stated above and that the I.O. is finding that the accused Shri Thomas Nangtdu is not involving in this case. This Court deem it fit and proper to accept the prayer of the I.O. and accordingly the accused person Thomas Nangtdu is discharged from liabilities of the case and the case against him is disposed of.

Sd/-

Smt. M.B. Challam,

Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Shillong Court

2. Some fourteen days later, the same Magistrate passed another order, which is impugned herein, and the same reads thus:

Date 19-6-2009.

Seen copy of the order of S.P., East Khasi Hills, Shillong, Memo No. S/C/15/2008-09/321-A dated Shillong the 17th June 2009 that inspector K. Prasad Officer-in-Charge, Sadar P.S. is directed to investigate the case in place of Sub-Inspector K. R. Marak of Shtllong P.S.

Keep the copy of the above order in the file.

Later,

Seen prayer of the I.O. Insp. K. Prasad dated 19th June 2009 for reasons stating therein, pray for adding Section 225, IPC r/w Section 25(I-B)/27 Arms Act which is allowed.

Later,

Seen and perused prayer of the I.O. Insp. K. Prasad, Shillong Sadar P.S. for the reasons stating therein, for re-opening of the case against Shri Thomas Nongtdu which is allowed. Also stating therein that for ready reference in connection with this instant case enclosed the Newspaper clipping. Place the same accordingly in the file.

And in the light of the above, the case against Shri Thomas Nongtdu is allowed to re-open.

Sd/-

Smt. M.B. Challam,

Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Shillong Court

3. Considering the nature of controversy and the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel on behalf of the rival parties, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case. Mr. J. M. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, vehemently attacks the decision of the learned Magistrate in re-opening the case when she has already discharged the petitioner from the case. According to the learned senior counsel, the order dated 5-6-2009 discharging the petitioner from the case is a judgment or, at any rate, a final order within the meaning of Section 362, Cr. P.C. and the learned Magistrate is thus barred from re-opening the case inasmuch as su