218 of 1966, the respondent, Dinesh Mishra, lodged a first information report, on June 3, 1965, at the Rajoun Police Station, that he saw a thatched house, of one Uma Kant Misra, situated on the numberthern side of his house, burning, and the petitioners herein.,
to the effect that the girl companycerned, had been recovered and that she bad stated that she had, of her own accord, eloped and therefore the police stated that the case might be treated as closed.
It was held by the High Court, following its previous decision, that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to call for a charge sheet, when he disagrees with the report submitted by the police, under S. 173 1 of the Code.
A case under S. 366 I.P.C. was registered against them.
1.964, before the police, at Malsalami police station, that his daughter, Hiramani, was missing from February 21, 1964, and that the appellants in that appeal, had kidnapped her.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated August 5, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The Magistrate appears to have perused the police diary and, after hearing the companynsel for the respondent and the public prosecutor, passed an order on October 27, 1965, directing the police to submit a charge sheet, against the petitioners, herein.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1966 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revi sion No.
In Criminal Appeal No.
238 of 1966, the second respondent therein, had lodged a written report, on February 24.
Similarly, in Criminal Appeal No.
The police, after investigation, submitted a final report to the Magistrate.
1020 of 966, AND Criminal Appeal No.
238 of 1966 .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate received this report on July 13, 1965, but, in the meanwhile, the respondent had filed what is termed a protest petition, challenging the companyrectness of the report submitted by the police.
The petitioners challenged this order, without success, both before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, and the Patna High Court.
All these orders are challenged by the appellants, in this appeal.
218 of 1966 .
The police made an investigation and submitted what is called a final report, under s. 173 1 of the Code, to the effect that the offence companyplained of, was false.
40 of 1965.
218 of 1966.
The High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and Gujarat have taken the view that the Magistrate has numbersuch power, whereas, the Patna and Bombay High Courts have held a companytrary view.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The companymon question, that arises for company sideration, in these two criminal appeals, by special leave, is as to whether a Magistrate can direct the police to submit a charge sheet, when the police, after the investigation into a companygnizable offence, had submitted a final report, under S. 173 of the Code of.
The second respondent filed a protest petition in Court, challenging the statements of the police and he also filed a companyplaint, under s. 498 I.P.C. The Magistrate, after a perusal of the case diary of the police, and hearing the lawyer for the appellants and the second respondent, as also the public prosecutor, passed an order directing the investigating officer to submit a charge sheet, against the accused persons, under S. 366 I.P.C This order has been companyfirmed by the, learned Sessions Judge, as well as the Patna High Court.
The petitioners, in this appeal, challenge these orders.
P. Singh, for the respondents in both the appeals .
P. Jha and Subhag Mal Jain, for the appellants in Cr.
238 of 1966.
Nuruddin Ahmed and R. C. Prasad, for the appellants in Cr.
There is a companyflict of opinion, on this point between the various High Courts in India.
Criminal Procedure hereinafter called the Code .
running away from the scene,.
