High Courts(1983) 05 P&H CK 0065

Ram Kishan vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 24 May 1983 · Citation: (1983) AICLR 792

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.S.Tewatia, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1742-M of 1983

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 346 words

D.S. Tewatia, J.

1.

The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings against him which had already reached the stage of culmination that is, only the final order after hearing the arguments was required to be passed when this petition came to be filed.

2.

The proceedings are to be quashed on the ground that the learned Magistrate having taken the cognizance of the case under Section 202 of the Code and having once got the matter investigated from the police under Section 202(1), was not competent to further refer the matter to the police for investigation under Section 153(3), which the Magistrate in this case had done. Hence, the proceeding stood vitiated. In support of the said ground the learned counsel cited Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others v. Narayan Reddy and others, AIR 1976 SC 1672 and Tula Ram and others v. Kishore Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2401.

3.

There is no dispute with the proposition that has been laid down by their Lordships which is that the trial Magistrate can order investigation by the police under Section 156(3) in criminal proceedings at precognizance stage and under Section 202(1) thereafter but vice versa cannot be done, i.e. after the Magistrate takes cognizance and orders under section 202(1) and receives the police report, further investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. would be without jurisdiction.

4.

In the present case, the Magistrate having taken cognizance under Section 202 and the police having submitted its report, further trial before the trial Magistrate cannot be said to be vitiated merely on account of the fact that the trial Magistrate also ordered investigation by the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It would have been a different matter, if the petitioner had come to this Court at the stage when the Magistrate had ordered investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the challenge was limited to such an illegal order.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.