The court has the discretion to summon the accused for trial even if the investigating agency submits a final report in negative form, provided that the court records reasons for differing with the report.

1. - This misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Gram Nyayalaya, Neemrana, Alwar whereby the petitioners were summoned to stand trial for offence under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC. Further prayer has been made that along with above order, order dated 17.09.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Behrod, Alwar may also set aside.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners, same was thoroughly investigated and the investigating agency came to the conclusion that no offence has been committed by the petitioners and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. It is further contended that in the occurrence mother of the petitioners was caused injury on the cheek along-with other members of the family of the petitioners, consequently at the instance of petitioners an FIR was lodged against the complainant. It is submitted that in fact present case is counter blast to the case registered at the instance of the family of the petitioners against the complainant in order to pressurise them not to pursue the case registered at their instance.

3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision petition had opined that it is a case of version and cross version and the investigating agency has submitted the final report in negative form only on the ground that no independent witness has been examined.

4. Shri Jain, to assail the orders passed by two courts below, has raised following two arguments for consideration of this court:

(a) That a grave error was committed by the Presiding Officer,Gram Nyayalaya, Neemrana in summoning the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC without discussing the report submitted by the investigating agency. Mr. Jain submits that it was incumbent for the court to consider the final report in negative form and thereafter record its reasons as to on what basis Court has differed with the final report submitted in the negative form.

(b) That injuries suffered by the family of the petitioners compared with the simple injuries suffered by the complainant prove that the petitioners have been falsely implicated.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the false FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR registered at the instance of the family of the petitioners.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before this court.

7. It is well settled legal position that as and when investigating agency submits the final report in negative form, the court of Magistrate can exercise any of the followings four options:

(i) The court can accept the final report in negative form.

(ii) The court can order further investigation.

(iii) The court can take cognizance of the offences upon the report itself; or

(iv) The court can treat the final report or protest petition as a complaint and record statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter consider the same for taking cognizance of the offence.

8. It is only in cases where the court of Magistrates exercise option (ii) and straightway take cognizance of the offence on final report submitted by the investigating agency, it has to specify reasons as to why it is recording difference with the opinion of the investigating officer, however where the court follows option (iv), in that case, the court has to look into the statements of witnesses recorded as preliminary evidence to formulate its opinion, and where statements of witnesses prima-facie disclose offence, the court has no option but to summon the accused for the offences.Thus in the present case, since Court has recorded statement of witnesses under section 200/202 Cr.P.C and after examining the same, has summoned the petitioners, argument raised cannot be accepted.

9. So far as the argument No.2 raised by learned counsel f