SHIV DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Magistrate First Class, Pachhar, requiring the Police to put up a charge-sheet against the petitioner and also to arrest him.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that a report was made by one Musammat Tudia in the Police Station, Ashoknagar alleging that the petitioner Naraindas alias Premanand committed rape on her. After investigation the Police made a final report to the Magistrate First Class, Pachhar for cancellation of the case because it found no substance in the report lodged by her. However, the complainant filed a protest petition alleging that the police was taking sides with the accused. Her application dated June 11, 1958 is in detail. It was on this that the Magistrate passed the impugned order.

( 3 ) THE petitioner made an application in revision to the Sessions Judge, Guna, who has dismissed it and upheld the order of the Magistrate. In doing so he has discussed a number of decided cases and has relied on a decision of this Court which is reported in Piyarji Mangilalji v. The State, AIR 1958 Madh Pra 234.

( 4 ) THE contention of Shri Anand before me is that although the Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance of the case, and he also had jurisdiction to direct the arrest of the petitioner, he had no jurisdiction under the law to order the Police to challan the accused. After hearing the learned Government Advocate I am of the opinion that this contention must be accepted. Under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is certainly open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of a case even where the Police is of opinion that there is no case against the accused. But I do not find anywhere in this section the power being vested in a Magistrate to order the Police to submit a charge-sheet against the accused even though it may be contrary to the conclusion reached by it. There is no doubt that in a suspected case a Magistrate may direct the Police to investigate and arrive at a conclusion one way or the other. That is not the case here. The Police having already investigated into the alleged crime came to a definite conclusion. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Advocate strongly re-lies on the decision of AIR 1958 Madh Pra 234. I have gone through that decision very carefully. In that case some buffaloes had been entrusted to a Supurdgidar, who eventually reported that they had died. The Magistrate disbelieved the Supurdgidar's report and ordered the Police to charge-sheet him under Section 406 I. P. C. This action of the Magistrate was challenged as without jurisdiction. This Court came to the conclusion : (1) "if a Magistrate suspects that an offence has been committed, then in the interest of justice, he has been empowered by the Criminal Procedure Code to take cognizance himself. " (2) But there is no provision as to how the Court will proceed in a matter like this. The duty of the Police is to help the Court in the interest of justice, peace and order to bring to book the persons alleged to have committed an offence. " It was for these two reasons that this Court held: "in view of the matter in a suspected case, a Magistrate can direct the Police under Section 190 (1) (c) Criminal Procedure Code to charge-sheet an accused to enable it to enquire and find out the truth. "

( 6 ) IT appears that the above view had to be taken in order to resolve the procedural difficulty which was felt in the way of administration of justice in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The peculiarities were :

(a) An agency was required to help the Magistrate "in the interest of justice, peace and order to bring to book" the Supurdgidar, who was suspected to have committed an offence under Section 406 J. P. C. ; and (b) The Police had not already investigated into the matter so as to arrive at a certain conclusion.

( 7 ) THE case in hand presents no such difficulties and the situation here is quite different.

(a) The complainant is there to produc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document