A magistrate, while taking cognizance of an offense after an inquiry under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973, should consider the grounds of the negative final report submitted by the police as well as the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquiry.

Banwari Lal Sharma, J.

Matter came up for hearing before this Special Bench constituted during summer vacations.

2. Petitioner/Complainant preferred this Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 06.06.2002 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 48/2001 (Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. State & Anr.) whereby Learned Lower Revisional Court allowed the Revision petition and quashed the impugned order dated 02.07.2001 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur District, Jaipur in FIR No. 108/99 (FR No. 51/99) Police Station Shivdaspura whereby Learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323 and 341 IPC against accused Bhagwan Sahai Sharma.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant Vishnu Narain submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Shivdaspura stating therein :-

^^fnukad 17-05-1999 dks eSa fo".kqukjk;.k 'kekZ o jkeLo:i jkf= 9 cts viuh thi esa dsu j[kdj chyok iSVªksy iIi ij Mhty ysus tk jgs Fks rks xk;=h efUnj xksusj jksM+ ds ikl igqaps rks vpkud ihNs ls ,d thi vkxs fudydj vkbZ vkSj gekjh thi dk jkLrk jksd fy;k thi esa MªkbZoj ds ikl vkxs cSBs O;fDr us gesa /kedh nsrs gq, thi esa dSjkslhu rsy gksus dk vkjksi yxk;k rFkk vius dks ftyk jln vf/kdkjh o lkfFk;ksa dks v/khuLFk deZpkjh crk;k ,oa ikap gtkj :i;s dh ekax dh geus :i;s nsus ls euk fd;k rks mUgksaus dSuksa dh ryk'kh ysdj [kkyh ik;k tkus ij Mhty j[kus o cspus dk ykbZlsal ekaxk rks geus Hkh muls mudk ifjp; i= eakxk rks os vkos'k esa vk x;s vkSj gekjs lkFk xkyh xykSap o ekjihV djus yxs o gekjs :i;s ywVus dk iz;kl fd;k rHkh lkeus ls fdlh okgu dh ykbZVsa nh[kus ij os rhu O;fDr thi esa lokj gksdj Hkkx fudys rFkk ,d dks geus idM+ fy;kA bl ?kVuk ls ge nksuksa ds xEHkhj pksVsa vkbZA jkeLo:i ds ukd ls [kwu cgus yxk rFkk ilfy;ksa esa nnZ gqvkA fo".kq ds nksuksa dU/kksa ij [kjkSaps vkbZ muds Hkkxus ds ckn geus ml idM+s x, O;fDr dks viuh thi esa cSBkdj Fkkuk f'konkliqjk ds fy, jokuk gks x;sA jkLrsa esa mlls uke&irk iwNus ij Lo;a dk uke ckcwyky jSxj p0Js0deZ0 iapk;r lfefr lkaxkusj crk;k rFkk ekjihV djus okys vf/kdkjh dk uke Hkxoku lgk; 'kekZ crk;k o vU; dk uke ykykjke eh.kk os pkSFks O;fDr dk Hkxoku lgk; dk iq= cryk;kA ge 9 ctdj 25 feuV ij Fkkuk f'konkliqjk gkftj gq, rFkk izkFkfedh fy[kdj nh rFkk ckcwyky dks mifLFkr Fkkuk LVkQ ds lqiqnZ fd;kA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA**

4. On the aforesaid report, FIR No. 108/99 was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation police submitted negative final report against which petitioner/complainant filed protest petition on which Learned Magistrate inquired under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973. During inquiry, petitioner/complainant examined CW-1 Hazari Lal, CW-2 Suji Lal and CW-3 Vishnu Narain. Thereafter Learned Magistrate after hearing, vide order dated 02.07.2001 took cognizance for offence under Section 323 and 341 IPC against accused Bhagwan Sahai which was challenged in Revision petition by accused Bhagwan Sahai. The Revision petition was allowed vide impugned order dated 06.06.2002 by the Learned Lower Revisional Court i.e. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur and order of Learned Magistrate was quashed and set aside. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.06.2002, petitioner/complainant preferred this Revision Petition before this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. Mohit Balwada submits that there is sufficient material for taking cognizance against accused Bhagwan Sahai for offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC and Learned Magistrate rightly ordered to summon him but without any cogent reason Learned Lower Revisional Court quashed the same, therefore this Revision Petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 06.06.2002 may be quashed and set aside and the order of Learned Magistrate dated 02.07.2001 may be restored.

6. Per Contra Learned PP Mr. SK Saini supported the impugned order and submitted that respondent/accused Bhagwan Sahai was posted as Block Develo