STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus ARUNA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 08-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
ARUNA DEVI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 173 (8) and 203-Dismissal 
of complaint u/s 203-Second complaint on same facts on basis of further 
investigation-Order of Cognizance-Whether legally sustainable-Held, 
yes. 
A complaint was filed against the respondents under various 
sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, after perusal of the 
complaint, directed an investigation to be made u/s 156 (3) of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure. A report was submitted that complaint was 
false. The report came to be accepted by the Magistrate. Thereafter the 
police had independently ordered further investigation. A challan came 
to be filed by the police against the respondents u/ss 420 and 467 IPC. 
The Magistrate took cognizance. Revision filed against this order of 
taking cognizance was dismissed. The order of cognizance was set aside 
on further revision to the High Court, which held that the magistrate 
had no jurisdiction to take cognizance after the final report submitted 
by police had been once accepted. The State had come in appeal. [under 
Article 136 of the Constitutiond-. 
The appellant contended that the view taken by High Court was 
rrroneous in law in as much as section 173 (8) of the Code permitted 
further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub 
section (2) had been submitted. Sub-section (8) also visualized 
forwarding of another report to the Magistrate. It was submitted that 
further investigation had thus legal sanction and if after such further 
investigation a report was submitted that an offence was committed, it 
. would be open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the same on his 
being satisfied in this regard. 
The respondents submitted that the order of the Magistrate taking 
cogn~nce pursuant to filing of · further report amounted to 
entertaining second complaint which was not permissible in law. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
274 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ARUNA DEVI [HANSARIA, J.] 
275 
HELD: 1.1 Dismissal of a complaint under section 203 of the Code A 
of Criminal Procedure is no bar to the entertainment of a second 
complaint on the same facts when fresh evidence comes forward on 
further investigation being made which leads to the filing of further 
report stating that a case has been made out. (276-E-F) 
Pramathanath v. Saroj Ranjan, [1962] Supp 2 SCR 297, relied on B 
and Bhindeshwari Prasad v. Kali Singh, (1977) 1 SCC 57, distinguished. 
1.2 In the instant case, the High Court erred in quashing the 
cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate. The appeal is, therefore, 
allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. (277-A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.761 
of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.90 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B.Crl.Misc. P.No. 233 of 1988. 
Aruneshwar Gupta, for the Appellant. 
V.J. Francis, Doongar Singh and V. Subramaniam for the Respondents .. 
The Judg111ent of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARlA, J. Special leave granted. 
A complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 
First Class, Bilara, against the respondents under various sections of the 
Penal Code. The gravamen of the allegation was that the respondents had, 
c 
D 
in pursuance of a conspiracy, transferred some land on the strength of a F 
special power of attorney bearing forged signature. The Magistrate, after 
perusal of the complaint, directed an investigation to be made·as contem-
plated by section 156 (3) to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the 
Code). A case was registered thereafter by police and a final report was 
submitted on 18.7.81 stating that complaint was false. The report came to G 
be accepted by the Magistrate on 23.9.81. It however, so happened that the 
Superintendent of Police had independently ordered further investigation on 
24.9.81 and a challan came to. be filed by police against the respondents, 
inter alia , under section 420 and 467 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance 
on 25.6.84. A challenge was made to this act of the Magistrate before 
Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who dismissed the revision. On further approach H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
to the High Court; the revision was allowed. and the order. of cognizance 
was set aside. The State has come in appeal under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2. A perus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.