Girja Shanker vs Pati Ram

D. M. Chandrashekhar, J.—This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the order of the 3rd Additional MunsifJudicial Magistrate, Kanpur, dated 22111975, summoning the applicants herein as the accused and the order of the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dismissing the revision petition of the present applicants against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate.

In this petition, Sri T. Rathore, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue summonses to the applicants herein without examining the complainant.

On a complaint against the applicants herein the police submitted a report to the learned Magistrate. At that stage the opposite parties herein appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted that the ''B'' report submitted by the police should not be accepted and they offered to produce evidence in support of the complaint. After taking the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses through affidavits, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitutes such offence ;

(b) upon a police report of such facts ;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

The very same contention which has now been urged before me had been urged before the learned Sessions Judge who took the view that under clause (b) of Section 190 it was open to the learned Magistrate to refuse to accept the final report of the police and to take cognizance of the case. The learned Sessions Judge also took the view that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case after receiving affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses and that there was no illegality in the Magistrate''s acting on the information received form the witnesses produced by the complainant whose evidence was adduced on affidavits.

The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to me to be correct and does not call for any interference.

In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. The stay order made by this Court on 1471976 is vacated.