Point of Law: Magistrate was not bound by the final report submitted by the police after investigation. Once he has taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. he may have taken into consideration the evidence under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. only which was available on record to pass any order of summoning.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Criminal Case No.26 of 2014 (Virendra Kumar Yadav Vs. State), under Sections 419, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jaunpur. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against the revisionist/accused Dr. Kalawati Shukla and has issued summon to her.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the applicant is an educated unemployed youth. His maternal uncle-Raj Bahadur Yadav a milkman was supplying milk at the house of opposite party-Dr. Kalawati Shukla. She said to Raj Bahadur Yadav that if there is any unemployed educated youth in his family then she can employ him as there are vacancies in the Family Health Department and she being Chief Medical Officer Badaun has influence in the department, but for this he has to pay Rs.3/-lacs. Knowing this fact from Raj Bahadur Yadav, applicant informed his father and uncle who after selling their land on 24.05.2010 and taking some loan arranged Rs.3/-lacs and the same was paid on 03.06.2010 at 05 p.m. at the house of Dr. Kalawati Shukla in presence of witnesses Ram Chandra, Dev Nath and Raj Bahadur Yadav. He also appeared in the examination held on 12.06.2010 but could not get employment. When he asked about this from Dr. Kalawati Shukla, she threatened him and refused to pay back the money. In the manner, she has cheated the applicant. Learned Magistrate on the aforesaid application directed that the matter be treated as a complaint case and the application was registered as a complaint. The Statement of applicant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Two witnesses were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate on 10.09.2013 directed the S.H.O. Kotwali, Janupur to investigate the matter and submit the report. In pursuance of that order an F.I.R. bearing Crime No.1222 of 2013 under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. was registered at P.S. Kotwali and matter was investigated by the police. After completion of the investigation a final report was submitted on 17.12.2013. Applicant filed a protest petition against the final report. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate rejected the final report and taking cognizance of the offence has summoned Dr. Kalawati Shukla to face trial for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Initially, the learned Magistrate passed the order to register the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case and adopted the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. but thereafter, the learned Magistrate adopted a novel procedure not prescribed anywhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel further contended that Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates that on receipt of a complaint of an offence the Magistrate may postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation by a police officer. However, in the present case, the learned Magistrate has first enquired the matter himself and thereafter directed for investigation. The learned Court below could not have resorted to both the provisions simultaneously and could have taken recourse only to one of the provisions. Thus, the procedure adopted by the learned Court below is illegal and vitiated in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further contended that as per the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code, cognizance of offence can be taken by the Magistrate only in accordance wit