S.S. Byas, J.
1. By way of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the four accused-petitioners Ram Lubhaya,Balveer singh. Surjeet singh and Nandlal have invoked the inherent powers of this Court for quashing an order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur dated 23-1-X978 by which, cognizance of offences under Sections 392, 365 and 342, I. P. C. was taken against them on the negative final report submitted by the police.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this proceeding are that Bhajansingh addressed a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, somewhere in October 1977. It was mentioned therein that nearly two months ago, he went to purchase Sugar to a Ration Shop situate in Chok 61-F. While he was returning, the four accused persons and one HarBhajan singh challenged him. They started beating him. He had Rs. 100/- and a wrist watch. The miscreants forcibly relieved him of the wrist watch and Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, they put him in a jeep and took him to Karanpur. There he was detained by the miscreants, They foisted a false case of illicit liquor on him and took him to the Excise Officer, The Excise Officer took him to police station. It was alleged by Bhajansingh that he was thus abducted and confined. The said report was received by the Station House Officer Karanpur on 27-10-1977. The police registered a case under Sections 365, 342 and 382, I. P. C. and took up investigation. Some persons were examined during investigation. The investigation revealed that the report submitted by Bhajansingh was entirely false and baseless. He had filed the report with ulterior motive to save himself in the Excise case of illicit liquor under Section 54, Rajasthan Excise Act, In the result, the Police submitted a negative final report in case, before the Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur. The learned Magistrate, however, disagreed with the police and took cognizance of offences under Section 342, 365 and 392, I. P. C. against the petitioners. He issued arrest warrants against them to secure their attendance.
3. Aggrieved against the said order of taking cognizance, the four accused persons have filed this application.
4. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners that there was absolutely no material on record to enable the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences against them. It was urged that none of the witnesses named by Bhajansingh in his written report supported his case during investigation. The investigation revealed thatthe report of Bhajansingh was not only false and baseless, but also mischievous. Bhajansingh was found in possession of illicit liquor. He was prosecuted for an offence under Section 54, Excise Act. In that case, the accused-petitioners were cited as prosecution witnesses. In order to save himself from the offence under Section 54, Excise Act. Bhajansingh filed a report before the Superintendent of Police nearly two months after the alleged occurrence. No satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from Bhajansingh for this highly belated report.
5. In reply, the learned public Prosecutor supported the order of the Court below and submitted that cognizance was rightly taken against the petitioners.
6. I have carefully gone through the record. There are some striking features in the matter, which induce as to conclude that the report of Bhajansingh was totally unfounded and no occurrence as alleged by him took place.
7. The first striking feature is that the report to the Superintendent of police was made by Bhajansingh nearly after 2 months of the alleged occurrence. This delay has not been satisfactorily explained by him. The belated report is fatal and makes the entire story highly suspicious.
8. Another striking feature is that the witnesses named by Bhajansingh in his written report have not lent, any support to him. In the written report, it has been mentioned that Sodagarsing and Gurucharansingh had seen the petitioners lifting Bhajansingh and putting him in the jeep. Both these persons denied that the. petitioners had abducted Bhajansingh or took him in the jeep. Sodagarsingh stated that he know nothing about the abduction. He simply heard that Bhajansingh was taken to Karanpur by the employees of one licenced Wine Dealer. Gurcharansingh likewise denied that Bhajansingh was abducted in his presence. No other material is there relating to abduction of Bhajansingh.
9. During investigation, some more persons were examined, but they too did not help Bhajansingh in his version of abduction or confinement.
10. There was thus, absolutely no material to show that Bhajansingh was abducted and confined or that his wrist watch and Rs. 100/- were forcibly taken away by the petitioners.
11. The last feature is that the accused was challaned for an offence under Section 54, Excise Act. In the first information report against Bhajansingh, it has been clearly mentioned that he was found in possession of illicit liquor by some of the petitioners. This indicates that Bhajansingh submitted a false report against the petitioners in order to save himself from the offence under the Rajasthan Excise Act.
12. Taking all these factors into consideration, it can be confidently said that the report of Bhajansingh was totally false and baseless. There was no material on record, which could enable the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence against the petitioner.
13. It is true that under Section 100(1)(b), Criminal P.C. the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance upon a police report. It is immaterial, whether the police report is of positive or negative character. If the Police Officer submits a negative final report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. stating therein that no offence has been committed, the Magistrate may agree with the police opinion and strike off the case. However, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to agree with the police opinion in all cases. There are cases where the Magistrate may not agree with the police opinion. In such cases, where he disagree, he is not bound to accept the negative final report. If the Magistrate is of opinion that an offence has been committed, he has ample jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 100(1)(b), Criminal P.C. However, before he takes cognizance on negative final report, there must be material on record to disclose the commission of an offence. If there is no material on record to disclose the commission of an offence, the cognizance should not be taken. Still then, if the cognizance is taken, it would amount to a grave error and must be corrected by this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
14. The impugned order taking cognizance of the offences against the accused-petitioners cannot be upheld and must be quashed.
15. In the result, the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Magistrate, Karanpur, dated 23-1-1978 and the subsequent proceedings taken thereunder are quashed.