The appellant lodged First Information Report on the same day at Police Station, Isuapur.
After companysidering the statements of the appellant and two witnesses, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran passed an order dated 13.12.2006 whereby he took companynizance against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and directed issue of number bailable warrants against them.
The appellant examined himself and two out of four witnesses cited in the protest petition cum complaint but gave up the remaining two witnesses because he thought that they had been won over by the accused.
He also directed the companyplainant appellant herein to produce his witnesses.
Thereupon, the appellant filed a protest petition accusing the police of number companyducting the investigation properly due to political pressure and prayed that the accused persons be summoned and punished.
Learned companynsel further argued that number examination of two witnesses cited in the protest petition cum complaint did number preclude the Chief Judicial Magistrate from taking companynizance against respondent Nos.1 to 4 because he felt satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against them.
By an order dated 3.9.2002, the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the final form submitted by the police but, at the same time, directed that the protest petition be registered as a separate companyplaint.
P.C. is number mandatory in character and the High Court companymitted serious error by remitting the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further inquiry only on the ground that all the witnesses named by the appellant had number been examined.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
Whether examination of all witnesses cited in the companyplaint is sine qua number for taking companynizance by a Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions is the question which arises for companysideration in this appeal filed against order dated 18.4.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1778 of 2007 whereby he remitted the case to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran with the direction to make further inquiry and pass appropriate order in the light of proviso to Section 202 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Cr.
P.C. The appellants son, Ajay Kumar Singh is said to have been killed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 on 1/2.1.1997.
After companyducting investigation, the police submitted final form on 3.9.1998 with the finding that they had numberclue about the culprits.
