A magistrate can independently assess investigation materials and register a protest petition as a complaint if sufficient grounds are provided, emphasizing the standard of prima facie evidence at the cognizance stage.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. I. A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. M. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.1.

2. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present criminal petition, has presented a challenge to an order dated 29-11-2022, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, in Complaint case being C.R.No.70/2022, had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC against the petitioners and directed issuance of summons to them. The petitioners have also challenged an order dated 28-03-2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, rejecting the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer in G.R. Case no.2300/2014.

3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present petition is noticed as under:

An FIR came to be lodged by the respondent no.1, herein, as informant on 30-05- 2014 before the Officer-in-Charge, Katigorah P.S, inter alia, alleging that on the same day at about 6.30 pm, the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 had come to the house of his younger brother, Abdul Rouf and had taken him to the shop of the petitioner no.1, situated at Malidahar. It was further stated therein, that while leaving for Malidahar, his brother Abdul Rouf had told his wife Munna Begum about the same. It is further alleged that at around 8.00 pm, his younger brother Abdul Mannan was informed over phone that their brother Abdul Rouf was lying injured near the shop of the petitioner no.1 and his ambassador car was found nearby. It was further stated in the FIR that on getting the information, the respondent no.1 along with his parental cousin and other persons went to the place of occurrence and on the way at Gumrah Bazar, they found petitioner no.1 sitting in his white colour Bolero car and when enquired about Abdul Rouf, the petitioner no.1 stated that Abdul Rouf's ambassador might have met with an accident. On further search, Abdul Rouf was found in an injured condition and it was alleged that there were marks of injuries in his entire body caused by sharp weapons. It was further stated that Abdul Rouf was rushed to the Kalain Hospital for treatment and on reaching the hospital, the doctor declared Abdul Rouf as dead. The said FIR was registered as Katigorah P.S. Case No.191/2014 under Section 302/34.

The Investigating Officer during the investigation got the statements of 5 witnesses including the informant recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The witnesses had implicated the petitioners, herein, however, the Investigating Officer proceeded to submit a final report vide F.R No.267/2017 dated 26-09-2017, inter alia, holding therein, that there was no evidence found to establish the charge under Section

302/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein.

In the said final report, it was also projected that the death of Abdul Rouf had occasioned while he along with his associate Saber Ahmed Talukdar were committing theft of iron plates of old Malidahar abandoned bridge situated at Malidahar. It was further projected that at the time for commission of the theft, the two persons had driven out the connecting bolts to detach the iron plates of the bridge resulting in the bridge collapsing and Abdul Rouf falling on a hard rocky surface of the riverbed resulting in instant accidental death of Abdul Rouf and injuries to his associate Saber Ahmed Talukdar.

The respondent no.1 on receiving notice with regard to the final report submitted in the matter by the Investigating Officer submitted his objection in writing, inter alia, al