9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically regarding the Magistrate's power to take cognizance of an offense based on a police report, even if the investigating agency exonerates the accused. Another issue is the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed with the case despite the accused filing for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Cognizance based on police report The case involved a situation where the investigating agencies, CID and local police, submitted final reports exonerating the petitioner of the allegations. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offense under Section 302/379 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner based on the police report itself. The Magistrate was within his rights to independently apply his mind to the materials in the report and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Issue 2: Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C, which was rejected by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Judge dismissed the prayer for discharge and fixed a date for framing of charges. Subsequently, charges were framed against the petitioner, making the proceedings infructuous and rendering the petitioner's remedy unavailable. In conclusion, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed based on the observations made regarding the Magistrate's power to take cognizance and the subsequent framing of charges against the petitioner, making the proceedings moot.
|
