RAKESH &ANR versus STATE OF U.P. &ANR.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1072 · Decided: 13-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 S.C.R.1072 
RAKESH &ANR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1412 of 2014) 
AUGUST 13, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ] 
c 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
. ss. 173, 190(1 )(a) and 190(1 )(b) - Jurisdiction of 
Magistrate to take cognizance, on a protest petition/complaint, 
of an offence in respect of which a final report u/s 173 had 
been accepted - Held: Only because Magistrate has 
D accepted a final report, the same by itself would not stand in 
f1is way to take cognizance of the offence on a protesV 
complaint petition; bu( the question which is required to be 
posed and answered would be as to under what circumstances 
tl7e said power can be exercised. 
E 
Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR for offence 
punishable u/s 364 IPC against the appellants and two 
others. On completion of investigation, the Investigating 
Officer submitted a final report to the court that no case 
was made out against the persons accused and that they 
F 
wc~re falsely implicated in the case. By order dated 
26.11.2002, the Magistrate accepted the final report but 
simultaneously directed that the case be proceeded with 
as a complaint case. The statements u/ss 200 and 202 
Cr.P.C.,were recorded and the accused were summoned 
G by the trial court to face the trial. The appellants moved 
the High Court, which answered in affirmative the 
question as to whether a Magistrate after accepting a ' 
negative final report submitted by the Police can take 
action on the. basis of the protest petition filed by the 
H complainant/first informant. 
1072 
RAKESH &ANR v. STATE OF U.P. &ANR. 
1073 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the A 
accused-appellant that having accepted the final report, 
the Magistrate had become "functus officio" and was 
denuded of all powers to proceed in the matter. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1 In Gopal Vijay Verma*, this Court held that 
the High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the 
Magistrate could not take cognizance of a case upon 
complaint because he had earlier refused to take 
cognizance of the case on a police report. [Para 6) c 
[1076-C-D] 
*Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha 
& Ors. 1982 (3) SCC 510 ; H.S. Bains v. 
State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 1980 Crl. 
LJ 1308; Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State 
of Maharashtra & Ors. 2004 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 772 : 2004 (7) SCC 768 - relied on 
Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar 1981 
Crl.LJ 795, stood reversed. 
D 
E 
1.2 In Mahesh Chand**, this Court has held that 
there cannot be any doubt or dispute that only because 
the Magistrate has accepted a final report, the same by 
itself would not stand in his way to take cognizance of 
the offence on a protest/complaint petition; but the F 
question which is required to be posed and answered 
would be as to under what circumstances the said power 
can be exercised. Therefore, the High Court has rightly 
answered the question. [Para 9)(1078-A-C] 
**Mahesh Chand v. B.Janardhan Reddy & Anr. 
G 
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 566: 2003 (1) sec 734; 
Kumar Gyanchandani vs. GD. Mehrotra & Anr. 
2011 (15) sec 513 - relied on. 
H 
1074 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014} 13 S.C.R. 
A 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
1981 Crl.LJ 795 
relied on 
Para 5 
1982 (3) sec 510 
stood disapproved Para 9 
1980 Crl. LJ 1308 
relied on 
Para 7 
8 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 772 relied on 
Para 9 
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 566 relied on 
Para 9 
2011 (15) sec 513 
relied on . 
Para 9 
c 
CRJMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
· Appeal No(s). 1412 of2014. 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2013 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench U. P. 
in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 64 of 2008. 
Shrish Kumar Misra, Adv., for the Appellants. 
Ms. Nidhi,Adv., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Whether a Magistrate after accepting a negative final 
report submitted by the Police can take action on the basis of 
the protest petition filed by the complainanVfirst i~formant? The 
above question having been answered in the affirmative by 
F the Allahabad High Court, this appeal has been filed by the 
accused. 
3. The bare facts that would be required to be noticed 
are as follows : 
G 
Respondent No.2 herein lodged an FtR which was 
registered as Crime Case NoA80 of 2000 under Section 364 
of the Indian Penal Code at the Police Station Gosai Ganj 
District Sultanpur against the appellants
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.