The final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. does not bind the Magistrate, who has the power to take cognizance of offences based on the material collected during investigation.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

1. Applicant being accused has approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 20.7.2023 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Konch, District Jalaun by disagreeing with the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. filed in Criminal Case No. 925 of 2023, titled Rinku Jatav vs. Dinesh Jatav, arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2019, under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Konch, District Jalaun.

2. The facts leading to the application are as under.

3. The above F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the complaint given by complainant Rinku Jatav, who alleged that he is a resident of village Unchagaon, District Jalaun and on 1.2.2019, the date of incident, at around 8:00 AM complainant’s brother Mansingh Jatav S/o Sri Panna Lal was going from his house at Unchagaon to village Bhed, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-085-6288. Mansingh Jatav was accompanied by pillion riders namely, Churaman Jatav and Parshuram Jatav both sons of Mohan Lal R/o village Unchagaon. At around 11:00 AM, when his brother’s motorcycle reached near village Gurawati, Police Station Konch, District Jalaun near a turn, then the motorcycle bearing registration no. U.P. 92-R 7650 driven carelessly by Dinesh Jatav S/o Ramsiya R/o village Unchagaon, Police Station Kailiya, struck the motorcycle of complainant’s brother and it resulted in serious injuries leading to death of his brother. Complainant prayed that lawful action be taken against the accused persons. On these broad allegations, the above F.I.R. was registered against the accused, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C.

4. After registration of the case, the investigation was carried out and through the final report dated 8.8.2019 (Annexure No. 3), the Investigating Officer concluded that the victim was driving the vehicle rashly and carelessly with two pillion riders and in order to cross the vehicle driven by Dinesh Jatav, he struck against the gas cylinder tied with the motorcycle of Dinesh Jatav and died accidentaly. As per the final report, the adequate evidence against Dinesh Jatav was not found, therefore, it was requested that the report exonerating the accused-Dinesh Jatav be accepted.

5. Being dissatisfied with the final report bearing No. 64/2021 dated 8.8.2019 filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the complainant filed protest petition dated 12.7.2023 (Annexure No. 4) and requested for rejecting the final report and made a prayer for taking cognizance against accused-Dinesh Jatav. The Judicial Magistrate, Konch, Distcit Jalaun vide impugned order dated 20.7.2023 rejected the conclusion of the investigator and summoned the accused for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C. and further directed to register the case as a State case. Hence, this application.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that allegations made by the complainant were thoroughly looked into by the Investigating Officer after registration of the case and a just conclusion was drawn that the applicant was not responsible for causing the death of victim Mansingh, much less by driving his two wheeler rashly and negligently. He submits that trial court while considering the final report as well as the protest petition has committed a serious error of law in taking cognizance against the applicant by further directing to register the case as a State case as once the cognizance is based on the protest petition, the procedure contained in Chapter XV Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Learned counsel for applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of eye witness namely, Churaman recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to contend that according to the statement of this witness, it was not a collision of two wheelers, but the handle of the m