KASLIWAL, J.—This revision is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bundi, dated 29th September, 1983, framing charge against the accused persons under sections 302, 302/149, 120B, 147, 148 and 201 IPC.

2. One Mohan Singh father of deceased Prasan Kaur instituted a private complaint in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bundi on 19th June, 1980, who forwarded the same under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to Station House Officer, Talera for investigation and report. The Station House Officer made a report to Superintendent of Police, Bundi, who sent a detailed report on 2nd July, 1980 to the concerned Magistrate that this case had already been investigated and no case of murder had been proved in police investigation. Thereafter on 11th July, 1980, the learned Magistrate passed an order for registering the FIR. and to make further investigation and sent the report under section 173 Cr.P.C. to the court and also issued a notice to the Station House Officer as to why contempt of court proceedings should not be proceeded against under section 29 of the Police Act. The case of the petitioners is that on receipt of this threatening order dated 1 1th July 1980, the Station House Officer, registered a case under sections 302, 200, 120B, and 149 IPC and filed a challan against the petitioners for the above offences in the court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thereafter committed the case for trial to the Sessions Judge Bundi, who framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above by his order dated 29th September, 1983.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the case being exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case without recording evidence as contemplated under section 202 Cr.P.C. Attention was drawn to proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been mentioned that no direction for investigation can be made by the Magistrate where it appears to him that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of sessions. It is submitted that no witnesses were examined by the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance in this case and he had no jurisdiction to give a direction for further investigation in the case to the police when a final report had already been submitted in the case by the police. It is thus, submitted that the order of committal itself being illegal, the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to frame charge and the entire proceedings taking cognizance and framing charge in the case should be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed on Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra (1) and Tula Ram vs. Kishore Singh (2).

4. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the proviso to Section 202 (I) of the Cr.P.C, a Magistrate, who receives a complaint disclosing offences exclusively triable by the court of Sessions is not debarred from sending the same to the police for investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code. It is further submitted that till cognizance was taken of an offence, the Magistrate was authorised to give a direction for investigation to the police under section 156 (3) and the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. will not come into operation in the present case, as no cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. It is submitted that the Magistrate has rightly passed an order under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the police itself had filed a challan considering the case to be made out and thereafter there was no irregularity in committing the case by the learned Magistrate to the court of Sessions for trial. It is also submitted that now the charge has been framed by the learned Sessions Judge himself considering a prima facie to be made out against the applicants and no interference is called for in such an order. Reliance is placed on Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy vs. V. Nar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document