LexJAGDISH RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAGDISH RAM -- v. ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN AND ANR. MARCH 9, 2004 B [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; Section 7: c Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging practice of untouchability by accused-Police found the complaint false qnd submitted ....:w final report-Second Complaint-The Court took cognizance and ordered issuance of process against accused-Challenge to-Dismissed by Court of Sessions-Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal proceedings-High Court remanded the case to Trial Court for consideration ' D of entire material on record to decide question of issuance of process against accused-Magistrate arrived at the same finding-Accu;ed filing another petition u!s 482 Cr.P.C.-Re_manded back by High Court directing trial Court to pass appr!Jpfiate orders on the basis of available material-Magistrate stood'by its ~a;lier finding and directed accused to be summoned-Yet another petition filed u!s 482 Cr.P.C.-Rejected by High Court holding that no case E for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was made out-On appeal, Held: Practice of untouchability is a serious offence-Since accused has approached the High Court every time for quashing of orders passed by ~ ............... the Magistrate, the case did not cross the stage of taking cognizance-Accused himself is responsible for delay-Hence, no case is made out to quash the F criminal proceedings on the ground of delay-Constitution of India, 1950- Article 17-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 156(3), 173, 200, 202 and 482. A Class-IV employee filed a complaiµt against the District Ayurvedic Officer in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of G offence under Section 7 of the Civil Rights Act. Police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the complaint was false and submitted final report. The employee filed another complaint in which the Magistrate took cognizance and found a prima facie case against the accused and issued process ., against him. The order was challenged by the accused by filing a revision ,.,,- H petition, which was dismissed by the Court of Sessions. Accused filed petition 846 / I -. JAG DISH RAM v. ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN 847 under Section 482 Cr.P,C. for quashing of the proceedings. High Court A remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal after taking into consideration entire material available on record. However, the Magistrate again reached the same conclusion. Accused filed yet another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Again, the High Court remanded the matter to trial Court for passing an appropriate order. The Magistrate considered the matter for B the third time but again reached the same conclusion and summoned the accused. Accused filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but this time tfle High Court rejected it by holding that no case was made out for exercising inherent powers by it. Hence the present appeal. It was contended for the accused-appellant that the trial Court did not C consider the entire material on record before deciding on issuance of process against him; that he was facing criminal trial for the last 19 years and therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed on the ground of delay. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court has rightly concluded that the. order passed by the Magistrate does not call for any interference in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (851-E] D 1.2. The order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is a well written order. The order lJOt only refers to the statements recorded by the E police during investigation which Jed to the filing offinal report"by the police and the statements of witnesses recorded by the magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. but also sets out with clarity the principles required to be kept in mind at the stage of taking cognizance and reaching a prima facie view. The Magistrate had only to decide whether sufficient ground exists or not for further proceeding in the matter. It is well settled that notwithstanding F the opinion of the police, a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance if the material on record makes out a case for the said purpose. The investigation of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. The Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.