The Magistrate has the discretion to order re-investigation and take cognizance based on the FIR and other materials without following the procedure of the complaint case.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 1409 of 1987 (State v. Ramji and Ors.), under Section 307 IPC, pending in Second Lower criminal Court, Allahabad.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri Japan Ghosh, learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional government Advocate representing the State.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case were that a complaint was filed by Bhagwan Prasad on 23. 7. 1985 under Sections 323/325/307 IPC alleging that on 5. 5. 1985 at 10. 00 A. M. when the complainant was plucking mangoes along with his brothers, the applicants arrived there carrying Lathi, danda, Gaddasa, and gun and started abusing the complainants side. On protest by the complainant, on the exhortation of Siya Ram, Ram Ji fired with the gun of Lalji injuring the complainant on his chest. Lalji and Ashok Kumar have beaten Ishwar Prasad, the brother of the complainant, with Lathi and Danda respectively and caused injuries. When complainants brother ishwar Prasad went to the police station to lodge the report, he was locked up. However, Ishwar prasads injuries were examined in the jail hospital and the complaint also got himself medically examined. As the police did not take any action on his application, thereafter the complaint was filed. Thereafter on 27. 7. 1985, an order was passed by the XVI Additional Munsif Magistrate, allahabad to the effect that statements under Section 200/202 Cr. P. C have been perused. There are fire arm injuries in the left side chest Hence, prima facie a case under Section 307 IPC appears to have been made out and Station Officer, Karchhana was directed to register and investigate the case under Section 307 IPC. In pursuance of that order a case at case crime No. 106-A of 1985 was registered at police station Karchhana on 3. 8. 1985. However, on 7. 9. 1985, the police submitted final report holding that actually the complainants brother Ishwar Prasad had fired, which struck Ashok Kumar on the back and as Ashok Kumar was running towards the side of Bhatjwan Prasad, hence pellets also struck Bhagwan Prasad and further no one used fire arm from the side of the applicants. It is further mentioned that on 4. 10. 1985 the final report was accepted by the Magistrate with a one line order and the file was consigned to the record.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER on 1. 11. 1985 on a protest petition being filed by the complainant, the final report and other papers were perused and the submission of the complainant was accepted that even after the acceptance of the final report, if the court is satisfied by the statement of the complainant and materials furnished by him, then the court could take cognizance. The court placed reliance on the case of P. N. Pandey v. State 1968 ALJ, 768. On being satisfied by this contention and injury report etc. of the injured, an order of re-investigation was passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, it appears that fresh investigation was done, but again final report appears to have been submitted on 7. 9. 1986 by the police. This final report also substantially reiterated the earlier final report dated 7. 9. 1987 to the effect that firing had been made from the side of the complainant by Ishwar Prasad, which struck Ashok Kumar and thereafter the complainant. The complainant again preferred a protest petition on 26. 9. 1986 and against this second final report, an order was passed on 25. 3. 1987 by the LCC-II, Allahabad summoning the applicants.

( 5 ) FIRSTLY, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the complaint was filed two and a half months after the incident on 23. 7. 1985, when the incident is said to have taken place on 5. 5. 1985. As two persons have received injuries from the side of the complainant and it is mentioned that the police did not take any action on the FIR or application by the complainant, the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a