JASRAJ CHOPRA, J.—S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1987 and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 95 of 1987 involve a common question and, therefore, I propose to decide them by a common order.

2. In both these cases, F.Rs. were submitted by the Police after investigation and the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused-persons regarding certain offences which were prima-faciely made out against them. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1987, the cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioners under ss. 147, 148, 323 and 325/149 IPC whereas in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 95 of 1987, the cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioner under ss. 426 and 379 IPC.

3. Mr. B. S. Rathore, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has raised only one contention before me that in these cases, the cognizance could not have been taken by the learned lower court without giving a notice to the acebsed-petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing as to whether the report under s. 169 Cr.P.C. should be accepted or not and if cognizance has to be taken, for which particular offence that has to be taken against the aceused-petitioners. In this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Hardeosingh Sandhu V. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein a learned single Judge of this Court observed that if the complainant is heard on his protest petition against the acceptance of the final report and if the Magistrate feels that cognizance should be taken against certain persons, it is in the interest of justice that they may also be heard, and they can only be heard if a notice is given to them.

4. Hardeosingh Sandhus case (supra) was followed by me in Jagdish V. State (2), wherein I accepted the revision and quashed the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi dated May 15, 1986 and remanded the case back to him with this direction that if he proposes to take cognizance against the accused-persons, he must give them a notice and afford them an opportunity of hearing but the hearing is to be confined to the point as to whether the report under s. 169 Cr.P.C. is to be accepted or not and if cognizance has to be taken then under what offences and no further.. . ¦ ,

5. Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. J. M. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the complainant in Criminal Revision No. 321 of 1987 have submitted that the aforesaid decisions are against the law and they are also against the decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court In this respect, they have referred to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Chandra Deo V. Prakash Chandra (3), wherein it was observed: —

"The entire scheme of Ch. XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that an accused person does not come into the picture at all till process is issued. This does not mean that he is piecluded from being present when an enquiry is held by a Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or through a counsel or agent with a view to be informed of what is going on. But since the very question for consideration being whether he should be called upon to face an accusation, he has no right to take part in the prosecution nor has the Magistrate any jurisdiction to permit him to do so. It would follow from this, therefore, that it would not be open to the Magistrate to put any question to witnesses at the instance of the person named as accused but against whom process has not been issued; nor can be examined any witnesses at the instance of such a person. Of course, the Magistrate himself is free to put such questions to the witnesses produced before him by the complainant as he may think proper in the interests of justice. But beyond that, he cannot go.

No doubt, one of the objects behind the provisions of s. 202, Cr.P.C. is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinise care fully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document