A magistrate has the power to issue process against an accused person under Section 190(1)(b) of the CrPC even if the police have submitted a final report in their favor, and the principles of natural justice do not require the magistrate to issue notice to the accused person or give them an opportunity of hearing before issuing the summoning order.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 22-8-1990 passed by the XIII ACJM, Agra, in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1990 summoning the accused applicants to face trial u/ss. 307/ 323/504, IPC.

( 2 ) MOHAN Singh, respondent No. 2, lodged a first information report on 20-8-1988 at P. S. Kheragarh, Distt. Agra, alleging that the accused applicants assaulted Ram Ratan and his mother Smt. Bhagwati at about 8 a. m. on 20-8-1988. Both the injured, namely, Ram Ratan and Smt. Bhagwati, were medically examined at the Primary Health Centre and injuries were found on their person. Smt. Bhagwati died two days after the incident. A case was registered a Crime No. 108 of 1988 on the basis of the first information report lodged by Mohan Singh and investigation commenced. Subsequently the police of PS Kheragarh submitted final report on 3-11-1988. The complainant Mohan Singh filed a protest petition before the learned magistrate and contended that the final report had been submitted by the Investigating Officer on unjustifiable grounds. The learned magistrate, after hearing the complainant, passed an order on 22-8-1990 rejecting the final report and further directed that the accused applicants be summoned to face trial u/ss. 307/ 323/ 504, IPC. It is this summoning order which has been challenged by the accused applicants in the present revision.

( 3 ) THE first contention of Shri Tej Pal, learned counsel for the applicants, is that the learned magistrate has erred in summoning the applicants when the police had submitted a final report. He has also contended that the complainant Mohan Singh had merely filed a protest petition but the procedure prescribed in Chapter XV Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) had not been followed inasmuch as neither the statement of the complainant was recorded u/s. 200 nor the statement of witnesses was recorded u/s. 202 of the Code. According to the learned counsel the learned magistrate acted wholly illegally in issuing process against the accused applicants as the procedure prescribed by law had not been followed.

( 4 ) THE point raised by learned counsel for the applicants is fully covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Misra AIR 1968 SC 117 and H. S. Bens v. State AIR 1980 SC 1883. In both these cases it was held that a magistrate on receiving a police report u/s. 173 Cr. P. C. to the effect that no case is made out against the accused may take cognizance of the offence under S. 190 (1) (b) of the Code on the basis of the police report and issue process. He may do so without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report. The controversy was again considered in detail by the Honble Supreme Court in M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1989 SC 885 and it was held as follows : -"upon receipt of a police report u/s. 173 (2) a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence u/s. 190 (1) (b) of the Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and take cognizance of the offence complained of and order the issued of process to the accused. S. 190 (1) (b) does not lay down that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the investigating officer gives an opinion that the investigation has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of his powers u/s. 190 (1) (b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Ss. 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case u/s. 190 (1) (a) though it is open t