Acceptance of final report by Magistrate under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code does not give rise to judicial proceedings and a revision petition against such order is not maintainable.

1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12-1-1988 by which, he accepted the final report submitted by the Police.

2. An FIR numbering 162/78 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar on 1-8-1978 for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 & 120B, Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The petitioner had submitted a written application to the then Home Minister, Government of Rajasthan in the year 1977. After registering the case the Investigating Officer during investigation recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized documentary materials. After completing the investigation a report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code was submitted in the concerned court disclosing commission of the offences by the accused-non-petitioners. Then the case was transferred to Jaipur and was beard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur. An objection was raised by the accused persons in relation to the investigation by Shri K.L. Rao, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID), Jaipur, who had formally registered the FIR. The preliminary objection was accepted by the learned CJM, Jaipur vide his order dated 5-1988 and the accused-persons were discharged. The learned CJM observed in that order that "the State was free to entrust the investigation to some other competent officials and the file charge-sheet against the accused-persons. In consequence of the order dated 5-1-1981 the case was re-investigated and the report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code did not disclose commission of any offence. The petitioner appeared before the Court and submitted a protest petition. The learned CJM vide his order dated 12-1-1988 accepted the final report submitted by the Police. Aggrieved by this order of the learned CJM, the present revision petition has been filed

3. Notice was given to the non-petitioners and Shri R.N. Khandelwal appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners except the State of Rajasthan which was presented by Shri Rizwan Alvi, Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri Khandelwal raised preliminary objection that the revision petition does not lie against the order accepting the final report Without hearing the revision petition on merit the arguments on this preliminary objection were heard. Both the learned Counsel advanced their arguments and cited law also.

4. Shri Khandelwal, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners relied on the case of Gopal Ram Bhabhda v. State of Raj. 1986 Cr. LR (Raj.) 424 . In this case the learned brother Shri Farooq Hasan, J. followed the case of Pukhraj v. Sheeshmal, 1961 (Raj.) 231 .

5. Shri S.N. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on 1980 Supreme Court 1883, 1982 Supreme Court Cases 91 and 1977 Supreme Court 2401. He has also relied on the case of Chandan Lal v. Nand Lal 1987 RLR (ii) 314 . It is not necessary to discuss the cases of Hon'ble the Supreme Court because the point involved in those cases is quite a different to that one which is involved in the present case. In those cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not dealt with the point as to whether a revision lies or not against the order accepting the final report The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles in the matters when the report has been submitted by the Police Under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code In the case where final report is submitted what a Magistrate should do has been emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases cited above, but in those cases this point as to whether revision petition lies or not against the order accepting the final report has not been dealt with or decided Therefore, the laws/cited by Shri Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance in this case.

6. The case of Chandan Lal (supra) is a revision petition against the acceptance of final report. Shri Choudhary while relying on the case of Chandan Lal argued that revi