A Magistrate must provide clear reasons when disagreeing with a negative Final Report, and failing to do so renders the order unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar (for brevity "the learned Revisional Court") in Criminal Revision No.29/2016 whereby, while allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondent No.2-accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") and setting aside the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thanagazi, District Alwar (for short "the learned trial Court") taking cognizance against the accused under Sections 323, 354(A)(1)(iv), 354 (H) (1)(i) & 509 IPC, the matter was remanded back to pass an order afresh on cognizance.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/complainant (for brevity "the petitioner") lodged an FIR No.158/2014 against the accused under Sections 341, 323, 354 & 504 IPC wherein, the investigating agency after thorough investigation, submitted the negative Final Report finding the allegations to be false. On a protest petition filed by the petitioner there against and after recording her statement under Section 200 CrPC and the statement of Shri Vijay Kumar, her husband, under Section 202 CrPC, the learned trial Court took cognizance against the accused as stated here in above. The revision petition filed there against by the accused has been allowed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 01.02.2019 as stated here in above.

3. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the accused in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC as also under Section 200 CrPC, it was not open for the learned Revisional Court to have set aside the order of cognizance. He, therefore, prays that this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed, the order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Revisional Court be quashed and set aside and the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the learned trial Court be restored.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

5. Learned counsel for the accused, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court, would submit that since, while taking cognizance against him, the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the Police Report at all, the learned Revisional Court did not err in remanding the matter back to the learned trial Court for passing the order afresh on cognizance, setting aside the order passed by it. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the following judgments of this Court:-

1. Judgment dated 03.08.2023 in SB Criminal Appeal No.1482/2023: Bhuta Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

2. Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: 2006 (1) RLW 640.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. As is evident from the material on record, after investigation in the FIR lodged by the petitioner, the Police has submitted the negative Final Report finding the allegations to be false on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation. A perusal of the order dated 16.11.2016 taking cognizance against the accused reveals that while passing it, the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the Police Report at all and has relied solely on the contents of the complaint, statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC as also her statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC, a fact not even disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a well settled legal principle that while considering the protest petition, the Court is obliged to consider the Police Report as well. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. (supra), held as under:-

"(7). In case of Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana 1993 SCC (Cri.) 376, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly stated that the Magistrate must give reason for disagreeing with the negative Final Report. In cas