HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No. 608/2018 IA No. 1/2018 CrlM No. 1376/2019 Pardeep Kumar …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate. q
vs
Pooja Rani .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu whereby the learned Magistrate has after recording satisfaction that offence under Section 376 Cr. P.C. is made out against the petitioner, issued process in the shape of warrants against him.
2. It appears that the respondent/complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of offences under Sections 376, 325, 341, 342, 363, 366, 386 and 457 RPC. A direction was sought upon the SHO, Police Station, Kana Chak to register the FIR. However, it seems that the learned trial Magistrate instead of directing the Police to register the FIR, proceeded to record the preliminary evidence of the respondent/complainant and took cognizance of the complaint.
3. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 24.02.2018 directed the SHO, Police Station, Kana Chak to conduct the inquiry in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The Inquiry Officer proceeded to hold inquiry into the matter, during which, statements of witnesses, acquainted with the facts of the case were recorded and a report dated Sr. No. 40
1
30.05.2018 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer before the learned trial Magistrate. In the said report, the Inquiry Officer submitted that since serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner/accused, as such, collection of proper evidence is absolutely necessary. On this ground, the Inquiry Officer sought further one month's time to complete the inquiry. On the basis of this incomplete inquiry report, it seems that the learned trial Magistrate vide the impugned order, recorded satisfaction that offence under Section 376 RPC is made out against the petitioner and issued process against him. It is this order that is under challenge before this Court by way of instant petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C confers powers upon the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process against the accused and direct an investigation to be made by the Police Officer for the purpose of deciding, whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The purpose of directing investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain the truth or falsehood about the allegations made in the complaint.
6. The fact that the learned Magistrate directed the investigation of the allegations in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C., shows that he was not sure about the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint and that he desired to have proper material before him, prior to taking a decision as to whether there is ground for proceeding against the petitioner/accused. However, it seems that the learned Magistrate was
2
in a hurry to proceed further in the matter and without waiting for the full and complete inquiry report from the Inquiry Officer, process was issued against the petitioner on the basis of incomplete inquiry report.
7. A perusal of the report of inquiry reveals that the Inquiry Officer wanted to have call details of certain phone numbers, as it had come on record during the inquiry that there was a love affairs going on between the complainant and the accused. It has also come forth that the complainant had sent threatening messages to the father in law of the accused. Without ascertaining the veracity of these facts, it would not have been possible for the Inquiry Officer to file his complete report. But the learned trial Magistrate did not have the patience to wait till filing of complete inquiry report and he proceeded to issue process against the petitioner.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate appears to have been passed in a hot haste and same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the learned trial Magistrate is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate, with a direction to get the inquiry under Section
202 Cr.P.C completed by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter, proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
9. Disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Jammu
08.02.2023
Sahil Padha
3
Comments