Rajendra Upadhyay and Another vs The State of Bihar and Others

Someshwar Nath Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 13.8.2001 whereby the learned Raj way Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara, has rejected the prosecution report submitted by the police under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code and accepted the final report.

The revisionists lawyer submitted that the revisions had filed a case of murder against the informant of this case who escaped from the rigorous of law in the aforesaid murder case. The informant of this case filed the case alleging kidnapping of his son. The police submitted final report and recommended for prosecution of the informant u/s 182/211. In such circumstances, the Court should have atleast enquired in the matter before accepting the final report or rejecting the prayer of the police to prosecute the informant for the offence under Sections 182/211, IPC.

The scope of the revision is limited and any order passed by the lower Court can be challenged or assailed on the ground of gross illegality or irregularities attaching to the impugned order. In the impugned order the lower Court has stated that the investigation report shows that earlier the police had found the case in favour of the informant so it was not expedient to proceed against the compliant/informant.

The opposite parties lawyer submitted that in the alleged case of kidnapping there was a charge-sheet at one stage against which the accused revisionists came up before this Court in a writ application (Cr.W.J.C. No. 665 of 1995). This writ application was subsequently withdrawn and this Court left it to the discretion of the C.J.M. to make any direction to the police u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.

The aforesaid circumstance of the case indicates that at one stage the police submitted charge-sheet in the case against the revisionists. However on further investigation the police submitted a final report. In the aforesaid circumstances if the Court felt not to proceed against the informant under Sections 182/211, IPC, I do not think that the Court''s order suffers from any illegality or irregularities. The Court cannot act simply on the wishes of a particular party. The Court is free to reject or accept the recommendation of the police. In the circumstances, I think that the Court was not unjustified in refusing to proceed against the complainant. Therefore, I am of the view that this Court need not revise the impugned order. This revision is accordingly., dismissed.