JAS RAJ CHOPRA, J.—The petitioner Jagdish Ram has filed this petition under s. 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh dated 27.8.1987 whereby he has upheld that order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 26.6.1986 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner for the offence under s. 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act.

2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are; that the non-petitioner No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 15.11.1985 alleg-ing that on 7.11.1985 at about 9.30 a.m. he was posted as Peon in the Ayurvedic Hospital at Fatehgarh. Accused-petitioner Jagdishram, who is District Ayurvedic-Offker, Sri Ganganagar came there for inspection. He asked him to bring water and when non-petitioner No. 2 took water in a Jug and a glass, the accused -petitioner refused to take water brought by him because non-petitioner No- 2 Lalaram is a Harijan. It is further alleged that the accused-petitioner gave several abuses to him. This complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under s. 156 Cr.P.C. Before the report was submitted by the Police under s. 173 Cr.P.C, the non-petitioner filed a second complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for the same offence and against the same accused on 28.1.1986 pleading therein that the Police has taken no steps and, therefore, he has filed this complaint.

3. It was reported on 1.2.1986 that the earlier complaint was forwarded to the Police and no report has been received. Report was received on 17.2.86, which was a final but still, the Court proceeded with the case and recorded the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and took cognizance against the accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved against the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 26.6.1986, the accused-petitioner Jagdishram preferred a revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh and that revision was dismissed and hence this petition under s. 482 Cr.P.C.

4. It was contended before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the learned trial court could not have taken cognizance without obtaining a report from the Police on the complaint which was forwarded for investigation under S. 156 Cr.P C. and without considering that report, cognizance ought not to have been taken. Rather, it was contended that the second complaint should not have been entertained. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge took the view that it was not at all necessary for the learned trial court to have considered the report of the Police. When the cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate under ss. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, he is only required to see the contents of the complaint and the statements recorded under s. 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, and he need not look into the report filed by the Police on the complaint which was forwarded to it under s. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that on the basis of the statements recorded under ss. 200 and 202 prima faciely offence under s. 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act is clearly made out and hence, the learned trial court committed no error in taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner.

5. I have heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, Mrs. Chandralekha, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. H.S.S. Kharaliya, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.

6. It was contended by Mr. MM. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner that when a complaint is filed and it is brought to the notice of the Court that a criminal investigation is also pending, the Court is obliged to stay the proceedings in the complaint case till the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document