Skip to content


Abdul Hakeem Vs. Jan Mohammed and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 27 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1977WLN428
AppellantAbdul Hakeem
RespondentJan Mohammed and anr.
Excerpt:
.....has taken cognizance of an offence on a protest-petition treating it to be a complaint and issued processes to the accused person or persons he has no power to order investigation into the case or to direct the police to make recovery of property, in respect of which an offence is alleged to have been committed.;it appears that the provisions contained in section 91 were not availed of by the judicial magistrate, who adopted a queer procedure not warranted by law in redirecting the station house officer to recover or seize the flour-mill within a specified period and to place all the papers before him, while ignoring the important fact that he had not accepted the final report and taken cognizance on a protest petition filed by the complainant. hence, the impugned order passed by the..........mandalgarh, district bhilwara, dated 26.2.1977, by which the final report submitted by the station house officer, mandalgarh was not accepted and the station house officer was directed to recover the stolen property, i.e. 'chakki' (flour mill) within a fortnight and to produce the papers before the magistrate.2. the relevant facts giving rise to this application under section 482, cr. p.c. are as follows: jan mohammed, non-petitioner no. 1, filed a complaint against abdul hakeem, abdul satar, kadir and aziz mohammed under sections 457, 379 and 380, i.p.c. in the court of the judicial magistrate, mandalgarh, it was alleged in the complaint that on dated 2.2.1976 in the night at any time between 12 p.m. and 2.00 a.m. the accused persons dishonestly removed the flour-mill belonging to the.....
Judgment:

K.D. Sharma, J.

1. Abdul Hakeem has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for getting quashed an order of the Munsiff-cum Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, dated 26.2.1977, by which the final report submitted by the Station House Officer, Mandalgarh was not accepted and the Station House Officer was directed to recover the stolen property, i.e. 'Chakki' (flour mill) within a fortnight and to produce the papers before the Magistrate.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. are as follows: Jan Mohammed, non-petitioner No. 1, filed a complaint against Abdul Hakeem, Abdul Satar, Kadir and Aziz Mohammed under Sections 457, 379 and 380, I.P.C. in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, It was alleged in the complaint that on dated 2.2.1976 in the night at any time between 12 p.m. and 2.00 a.m. the accused persons dishonestly removed the flour-mill belonging to the complainant from his shop after removing the lock put to it. It was further stated that the complainant had given this flour-mill to Chand Khan on 'Thekka' and Abdul Gani used to work at the flour-mill on behalf of Chand Khan. On 2.2.1976 when the flour-mill was stolen, the complainant had gone to Bhilwara for getting his tractor repaired. When he came back to Mandalgarh, he was informed by Abdul Gani and Chand Khan about the theft of the flour-mill and so he rushed to the court to make a complaint about the incident. The Munsiff cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, for warded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Mandalgarh, for investigation. The Station House Officer deputed Ahmed Hussain to make the usual investigation into the matter. Ahmed Hussain after making thorough investigation came to the conclusion that the flour-mill was a joint property of Jan Mohammed and Abdul Hakeem accused and that it was removed from the shop of the complainant with the latter's consent. Consequently, the police submitted a final report in the case to the Judicial Magistrate, who did not accept it and took cognizance of the offence upon a protest-petition filed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate, however, directed the Station-House Officer to recover the flour-mill within 15 days and to produce the papers before him Aggrieved by this order Abdul Hakeem, accused-petitioner, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

4. I have carefully gore through the record & heard Mr. N.P. Gupta for the petitioner, Mr. B.R. Arora for Jan Mohammed, non-petitioner No. 1 and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat for the State.

5. The short question that requires determination in this case is whether the learned Magistrate has committed a glaring error in directing the Station House Officer to recover the flour-mill when he had already taken cognizance on a protest-petition on a complaint filed by Jan Mohammed complainant against the petitioner and other accused. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. The reason is that where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on a protest-petition treating it to be a complaint and issued processes to the accused person or persons, he was no power to order investigation into the case or to direct the police to make recovery of property, in respect of which an offence is alleged to have been committed. The only Provision, which empowers him to authorise by a warrant any police officer above the rank of a police constable to search any place which is used for the deposit or sale of stolen property, and to take possession of any property or article therein found which he reasonably suspects to be stolen property or objectionable article & to convey such article or property before a Magistrate is contained in Section 94, Cr. P.C. In the instant case, it appears that the provisions contained in Section 94 were not availed of by the Judicial Magistrate, who adopted a queer procedure not warranted by law in redirecting the Station House Officer to recover or seize the flour-mill within a specified period and to place all the papers before him, while ignoring the important fact that he had not accepted the final report and taken cognizance on a protest petition filed by the complainant. Hence the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, so far as it relates to directing the Stat on House Officer to recover the flour-mill, is liable to be quashed, as it is wholly unwarranted.

6. The application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is. therefore, accepted and the impugned order so far as it relates to the directing of the Station House Officer to recover the flour mill, is quashed, and the case is sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh. for further proceedings in accordance with law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //